So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that the whole God created the universe is a straw man. I don't think the Bible really claims it. Looking through most of the creation stories and religious text that deals with before the creation, you might notice that most if not all deals with the creation of this system (solar).

I was hoping someone would quote Nietzshe on the issue of Religion and Nihilism. I think he had his own definition of what nihilism was all about.

That rather depends on whether you're reading the Bible or Aquinas, but even in the Bible God creates the firmament, it just doesn't explain what he did with/to those other stars.

I disagree. What I did was simply to take the familiar deities and put them in a different perspective.

A religious person puts faith in whatever deity the person believes in, whereas an areligious person would not. In the case of atheism, no deities are thought to exist. In the case of nihilism, it is my argument that one could, for whatever reason, believe that a certain deity exists, but that the deity is not what it claims to be. So, same deity, different interpretation.

In other words, I do not find that nihilism implies atheism, insofar as atheism excludes the existence of deities.

Well, I dissagree with your dissagreement. Few theistic models today postulate "deities", pretty much all of them have just one primal, irresistable force which created and controls (at least passively) everything. There is only one correct interpretation of this deity if you believe in it, anything else is insane. To put it another way, there's no point believing the all-powerful ruler of the universe is a dick, because you can't do anything about it.

There are several theories being postulated as to the purpose of the Universe. One claims that when the true scope and purpose of the universe has been discovered, including why it is here, the Universe will instantly disappear. And from this, it will be replaced by something even more bizarre and complex. And other's claim that this has already happened.

I think this discussion arose due to my first post, which says something like "I'm a nihilistic atheist". In retrospect, it doesn't make much sense, so I will explain my transition from being part if a religious sect, to dismissing all religions, on the basis that they are scientifically incorrect.

I'm Japanese. I was born into a Shinto-Buddhist family. Whatever. When I got to age 13, I started to question religions (including my own, which is not really a religion). And thus, I became an agnostic. I was only agnostic for about a year, before I became a deist. I was a deist until the age of 18, whereby I embraced atheism. Now this is where my "nihilistic" thoughts began.

I have manic depression, without the depression part. I can be quite loony and think abstract thoughts, and then I go back down into the logical thought. When I'm "manic", I start to question not only the purpose of myself, but the purpose of everything. If we all die, in the end, what's the point in doing anything? What's the point in finding love (which I tend to walk away from), what is the point in playing Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight. What's the point in researching animal behaviour?

In the end, we all die. Which is another reason why I posted my "theory" in the first post. This fear of death gave rise to religion. When I questioned everything, I did not become scared. Scared of what's to come. No, I just wanted answers.

Then, my "mania" stops. And I do play Shogun 2 for 8 hours straight (on occasion). I do study animal behaviour. I then realise I'm doing it for short term satisfaction. That's all life really is. Short term satisfaction.

That sounds like something other than manic depression, but in any case you've gone from denigrating religion for not being scientifically "correct" to proffering pseudo-scientific myths about the purpose of the universe.

The fact is, "purpose" is not a scientific concept, so if you want "purpose" you need more than science.

thats all life is and probably can ever be to science. because what it is, is descriptive and such is science. what it can be or ought to be is normative and is beyond the realm of scientific duty.

btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.

Nice to know it's still appreciated.

[Sigurd]

That rather depends on whether you're reading the Bible or Aquinas, but even in the Bible God creates the firmament, it just doesn't explain what he did with/to those other stars.

I don't think this thread has room for this particular discussion.
However, I would like to say that I wasn't quite aware that Aquinas was on the same wavelength as me, but it didn't surprise me. I know you have Catholic roots and hence subsribe to the creatio ex nihilo camp, whereas I, due to the nature of my beliefs, hold to the greek ex nihilo, nihil fit.
I therefore read the first sentence of Genesis as a general header for what to come, and the second line as the real 1st line of Genesis. If you browse through the different translations, many do in fact treat the first sentence as a header, some even incorporate it into the second line. In some it says heavens, in others firmament, others the sky. Which to me is not mutual exclusive. Nor is it synonymous with the universe. I have also previously suggested how Genesis could be read with the current understanding of how our solar system came to be.
IF the universe was "created" for the sole purpose of creating man, I would think that our location in the universe would be more prominent.
Just thinking of the later discoveries and the unbelievable vastness of our universe and the galaxies in it, genesis, as classically understood, under-achieves. Since I wont dismiss it on a general atheism basis, I am looking for possibilities, and they are there. Earth without form and the spirit of God moving over the waters is particularly interesting, suggesting something rather than nothing.

[Viking]

Well, I dissagree with your dissagreement. Few theistic models today postulate "deities", pretty much all of them have just one primal, irresistable force which created and controls (at least passively) everything.

What I mean by the word "deity" is simply whatever entity, force or in whichever shape you want it; that has either supreme control or, as a minimum, a control over the universe that no "normal" being can have. Something outside our layer of existence, or reflecting a different part of existence.

There is only one correct interpretation of this deity if you believe in it, anything else is insane. To put it another way, there's no point believing the all-powerful ruler of the universe is a dick, because you can't do anything about it.

There are always two forms of beliefs for any phenomena: 1) that the phenomena exists, 2) that the common understanding of the phenomena is correct.

Here is one parallel: a mountain is believed to be a deity by some [fictional] world religion. The mountain supposedly has the power to change the course of destiny. People who do not follow this religion, do not believe that the mountain is a deity, but do believe that it exists (they can see it with their own eyes, and climb it).

Now of course, the parallel is weak because only one belief assumes the relevant deity to exist; for the other belief, it is just a regular mountain like any other. However, it is relevant because it concerns the position of a god. You can believe that a deity exists, but you do not have to believe the religion that follows it. You cannot say there is "no point" in believing that something exists, because if you hold that belief, then that is something you actually believe... It does not have to serve any other point than to be a part of the understanding of existence.

Whether or not such a belief is common, is outside of the scope of this debate; but such a belief is logically consistent.

[spankythehippo]

That sounds like something other than manic depression, but in any case you've gone from denigrating religion for not being scientifically "correct" to proffering pseudo-scientific myths about the purpose of the universe.

The fact is, "purpose" is not a scientific concept, so if you want "purpose" you need more than science.

These "pseudo-scientific myths" I come up with have nothing to do with my beliefs. It's just something I think about on occasion. Honestly, if you want to bring up the religion debate again, go ahead. But I wont participate. Live your own life. Believe what you want to believe.

"Purpose" is obviously something that cannot be answered by science. And by purpose, I mean, the absolute root reason for existence. So I don't think about it for too long. I just ponder on it, if I have free brain power, or free time.

btw if you play STW2 8 hours straight u need to get yourself checked. and ask yourself why the in name of hell and heaven arent you playing RTW EB.

Hey. I only played Shogun 2 for 8 hours when I took my annual leave. And Shogun 2 is my first Total War game, and I really enjoy it, so I might pick up the other ones.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These "pseudo-scientific myths" I come up with have nothing to do with my beliefs. It's just something I think about on occasion. Honestly, if you want to bring up the religion debate again, go ahead. But I wont participate. Live your own life. Believe what you want to believe.

"Purpose" is obviously something that cannot be answered by science. And by purpose, I mean, the absolute root reason for existence. So I don't think about it for too long. I just ponder on it, if I have free brain power, or free time.

The point being that such ponderings are as logical or defensible as any of the major religious beliefs, and no more. If anything, they make less sense because at least in religion the claim is that these beliefs were provided by a higher, extra universal, power.

I don't think this thread has room for this particular discussion.
However, I would like to say that I wasn't quite aware that Aquinas was on the same wavelength as me, but it didn't surprise me. I know you have Catholic roots and hence subsribe to the creatio ex nihilo camp, whereas I, due to the nature of my beliefs, hold to the greek ex nihilo, nihil fit.
I therefore read the first sentence of Genesis as a general header for what to come, and the second line as the real 1st line of Genesis. If you browse through the different translations, many do in fact treat the first sentence as a header, some even incorporate it into the second line. In some it says heavens, in others firmament, others the sky. Which to me is not mutual exclusive. Nor is it synonymous with the universe. I have also previously suggested how Genesis could be read with the current understanding of how our solar system came to be.
IF the universe was "created" for the sole purpose of creating man, I would think that our location in the universe would be more prominent.
Just thinking of the later discoveries and the unbelievable vastness of our universe and the galaxies in it, genesis, as classically understood, under-achieves. Since I wont dismiss it on a general atheism basis, I am looking for possibilities, and they are there. Earth without form and the spirit of God moving over the waters is particularly interesting, suggesting something rather than nothing.

Well, if we assume that Genesis is to be poetically understood, or that the scribes poetically missunderstood the revelation given to them, then it seems reasonable that the account only describes the creation of the solar system. After all, Sol is where we live but that doesn't mean God didn't create the rest of the universe. Nor is it necessary that he created the "whole" universe purely for humanity's benefit, in fact genesis makes it unlikely unless we were seeded on other planets in the universe as well.

It is not necessary to be so narcisistic as to believe the entire universe was created to be man's playground, merely that the entire universe was created by God.

What I mean by the word "deity" is simply whatever entity, force or in whichever shape you want it; that has either supreme control or, as a minimum, a control over the universe that no "normal" being can have. Something outside our layer of existence, or reflecting a different part of existence.

I think you're unconciously building a straw man, the "limited power deity" is a favoured topic of some Atheists, but all you are really talking about is a cosmic man to our human dog. That is not an accepted theological concept, and hasn't been for a couple of thousand years for the simple reason that as soon as you postulate a constrained god you postulate a constrainer and that become "God" instead.

So, you cannot have a limted God.

There are always two forms of beliefs for any phenomena: 1) that the phenomena exists, 2) that the common understanding of the phenomena is correct.

Certainly true.

Here is one parallel: a mountain is believed to be a deity by some [fictional] world religion. The mountain supposedly has the power to change the course of destiny. People who do not follow this religion, do not believe that the mountain is a deity, but do believe that it exists (they can see it with their own eyes, and climb it).

Now of course, the parallel is weak because only one belief assumes the relevant deity to exist; for the other belief, it is just a regular mountain like any other. However, it is relevant because it concerns the position of a god. You can believe that a deity exists, but you do not have to believe the religion that follows it. You cannot say there is "no point" in believing that something exists, because if you hold that belief, then that is something you actually believe... It does not have to serve any other point than to be a part of the understanding of existence.

Whether or not such a belief is common, is outside of the scope of this debate; but such a belief is logically consistent.

The parralel does not map on to modern theistic religions, because phyiscal objects are not venerated, a point make repeatedly in the old testemant, and by Augustine in the first book of the City of God.

[Viking]

I think you're unconciously building a straw man, the "limited power deity" is a favoured topic of some Atheists, but all you are really talking about is a cosmic man to our human dog. That is not an accepted theological concept, and hasn't been for a couple of thousand years for the simple reason that as soon as you postulate a constrained god you postulate a constrainer and that become "God" instead.

So, you cannot have a limted God.

Limitations is where the interpretation enters. Religious person who believes in the existence a relevant god: the god has no limitations. Areligious person who also believes in the existence of this god: there are certain elements outside the control of this god.

The latter position cannot be understood to be atheistic, even if you do not want to label it "theistic" (only because the god does not control everything, that does not mean that there exists something higher up in the hierarchy, or that such a thing would even be meaningful to talk about) . The original point was that nihilism does not imply atheism; but more broadly one can state that areligiousity does not imply atheism/agnosticism.

The parralel does not map on to modern theistic religions, because phyiscal objects are not venerated, a point make repeatedly in the old testemant, and by Augustine in the first book of the City of God.

That is really beside the point. The thing is that person A and person B both can have an experience which leads them to conclude that god C exists; but that their interpretations of god C may differ by a lot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Limitations is where the interpretation enters. Religious person who believes in the existence a relevant god: the god has no limitations. Areligious person who also believes in the existence of this god: there are certain elements outside the control of this god.

The latter position cannot be understood to be atheistic, even if you do not want to label it "theistic" (only because the god does not control everything, that does not mean that there exists something higher up in the hierarchy, or that such a thing would even be meaningful to talk about) . The original point was that nihilism does not imply atheism; but more broadly one can state that areligiousity does not imply atheism/agnosticism.

Well, from a Christan point of view the limited and unlimited God are two distinct and mutually exclusive entities, as Lord Sacks said, "that God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

Also, the common Christain, Jewish and Islamic understand of "God" is as what Aquinas described as , "esse", the act of being.

If there are certain elements outside the control of this God several questions must be answered?

1. Is this God within or without the universe? His limitations imply either that he is "within" and therefore not the creator, and thus not "God" or:

2. Is he constrained by a greater force, one which he is beholden to, and therefore not "God"?

3. If this God is "within" the universe in a tangible sense is he hidebound by the universal laws, i.e. is he mortal? If he were he would not be God.

That is really beside the point. The thing is that person A and person B both can have an experience which leads them to conclude that god C exists; but that their interpretations of god C may differ by a lot.

Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

Your similey lacks force outside of a polytheistic system, but nobody does polytheism today - not even Hindus.

[The Stranger]

A or B are not neccesarily wrong. they can look at it from different backgrounds and thus reach different conclusions and they can still both be (partially) right. ofcourse if their views exclude each other... one or the other might be wrong, it would depend on your definition of truth and knowledge.

[Papewaio]

If A or B must be wrong then there is no God worthy of that title that they experienced.

After all two people can experience electromagnetic phenomena. A saw a wave, B a particle. Both are right. So a God that can't also express basic natural duality must not be the God of all the Universe including its natural abilities

[spankythehippo]

There is one thing I don't understand. Why is this debate still going? Isn't it better to agree to disagree? This is how religious differences start wars, because everyone wants to believe that they are right. This paradigm of social status (i.e. What religion do you associate with?) is very detrimental. I've seen arguments from Christians who claim that all atheists should burn in hell, just because we don't believe.

The best example is this. "Answer me this atheists. If the Earth is 6 million years old, why is it only 2008?". This single thought was/is the most idiotic and stupidest thing to ever have been uttered by a human, in my opinion. This hostility is something I do not understand. If you don't piss them off, they wont piss you off. Those know-it-all Christians (and by know-it-all, I mean that they claim to know everything to everyone) are pissing everyone off. I know many Christians who don't question my beliefs, and I don't question theirs. All's well.

I'm in rage mode.

[Viking]

Well, from a Christan point of view the limited and unlimited God are two distinct and mutually exclusive entities, as Lord Sacks said, "that God you don't believe in? I don't believe in him either."

Also, the common Christain, Jewish and Islamic understand of "God" is as what Aquinas described as , "esse", the act of being.

If there are certain elements outside the control of this God several questions must be answered?

1. Is this God within or without the universe? His limitations imply either that he is "within" and therefore not the creator, and thus not "God" or:

2. Is he constrained by a greater force, one which he is beholden to, and therefore not "God"?

3. If this God is "within" the universe in a tangible sense is he hidebound by the universal laws, i.e. is he mortal? If he were he would not be God.

I think your "worldview", or rather, view of general existence, is too narrow. The universe is where we exist, alright. But there is nothing wrong, in itself, to say there could be something outside the universe; that would depend on the definition the word 'universe' - is it everything, or is it the sum of that which is within our (theoretical) physical reach? There are some theories that operate with multiple universes, so evidently it is nothing new to consider the definition of the word 'universe' to be the latter.

Using the latter definition, there could exist something; an area where there is not spacetime, but something else (whatever it may be), in which 'gods' (or just a single one) could exist. Let us say that a god cannot interfere with the control of other gods over their creations. Let's say that 'god' A created our universe. Let us say that he can control everything within it; and since no other gods can control anything here, god A is almighty in our universe; he controls every aspect of it.

So, what is the limitations of god A? The limitations lie in that our universe is not everything, and that god A himself is a part of something. But we can still have god A to be immortal (the concept of death may be meaningless where the gods reside), no one can command god A to do anything (so he is completely independent). But god A cannot alter the things, or at least not everything, that lies beyond our universe. So therefore, he has limitations, but not when it comes to independent things in our universe.

What is a dependent thing in our universe; something that has to do with things beyond it? Well, this could be e.g. the concept of meaning; meaning can exist regardless of whether god A creates a universe or not, and so he cannot create meaning himself. What is dependent in our universe, is whatever that is not physical.

So to sum up, we could have a god that is almighty when it comes to the physical, but not when it comes to the 'philosophical'. I don't see how this would crash (too much) with a common understanding of what a god is capable of, because after all, you cannot touch or feel what is philosophic, only what is physical (that is to say, how could you possibly tell the difference between one god that can create true meaning and true moral, and one that can not?). The philosophical power of god A, is that he can decide which of his creatures that goes to heaven and which ones that does not based upon their believes, which are philosophical.

Either A or B are wrong, that's the point.

I assumed either of them is wrong, though that is not necessary.

Isn't it better to agree to disagree?

As long as there appears to be untouched aspects, the debate goes on.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I gotta say, I do like PVC's take on God. Is that a mainstream christian view, or something of your own?

I'd say I was fairly academically conservative in my theology, that doesn't necessarily make me "mainstream" but I'm not exactly controversial, not here anyway.

There is one thing I don't understand. Why is this debate still going? Isn't it better to agree to disagree? This is how religious differences start wars, because everyone wants to believe that they are right. This paradigm of social status (i.e. What religion do you associate with?) is very detrimental. I've seen arguments from Christians who claim that all atheists should burn in hell, just because we don't believe.

The best example is this. "Answer me this atheists. If the Earth is 6 million years old, why is it only 2008?". This single thought was/is the most idiotic and stupidest thing to ever have been uttered by a human, in my opinion. This hostility is something I do not understand. If you don't piss them off, they wont piss you off. Those know-it-all Christians (and by know-it-all, I mean that they claim to know everything to everyone) are pissing everyone off. I know many Christians who don't question my beliefs, and I don't question theirs. All's well.

I'm in rage mode.

....And yet, you're in rage mode.

What does that tell you about this debate? I'm trying to have a civilised discussion and you bring your baggage about people who are not represented here at all, by anyone.

In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism. That is because it is not what we believe that we fight over, it is what we refuse to believe.

Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree.

I think your "worldview", or rather, view of general existence, is too narrow. The universe is where we exist, alright. But there is nothing wrong, in itself, to say there could be something outside the universe; that would depend on the definition the word 'universe' - is it everything, or is it the sum of that which is within our (theoretical) physical reach? There are some theories that operate with multiple universes, so evidently it is nothing new to consider the definition of the word 'universe' to be the latter.

The "latter" definition was the traditional worldview prior to Copernicus and Kepler, who demonstrated that the Earth was not the centre of the universe and that there were other things in it. The key is in the word, "universe", it is per definition everything we know. Postulating multiple universes is fine but the evidence for them is of necessity non-existent.

Using the latter definition, there could exist something; an area where there is not spacetime, but something else (whatever it may be), in which 'gods' (or just a single one) could exist. Let us say that a god cannot interfere with the control of other gods over their creations. Let's say that 'god' A created our universe. Let us say that he can control everything within it; and since no other gods can control anything here, god A is almighty in our universe; he controls every aspect of it.

So, what is the limitations of god A? The limitations lie in that our universe is not everything, and that god A himself is a part of something. But we can still have god A to be immortal (the concept of death may be meaningless where the gods reside), no one can command god A to do anything (so he is completely independent). But god A cannot alter the things, or at least not everything, that lies beyond our universe. So therefore, he has limitations, but not when it comes to independent things in our universe.

OK, such a God would be indistinguishable from an unconstrained one from our perspective, but one merely applies Ockham's Razor to that theology to see that A: it is extravagently complex, and B: such a setup implies a further creator who created those "Gods", and then that would be the "real" God. The monotheistic God is not constrained, therefore a constrained entity is not God, because God is only one, and HE cannot be limited, he is limitless in all things.

It's a good gambit, but it doesn't work because it doesn't answer the monotheistic claim, it merely tries to suplant it with a parralel one.

What is a dependent thing in our universe; something that has to do with things beyond it? Well, this could be e.g. the concept of meaning; meaning can exist regardless of whether god A creates a universe or not, and so he cannot create meaning himself. What is dependent in our universe, is whatever that is not physical.

So another, higher, power created meaning.

So to sum up, we could have a god that is almighty when it comes to the physical, but not when it comes to the 'philosophical'. I don't see how this would crash (too much) with a common understanding of what a god is capable of, because after all, you cannot touch or feel what is philosophic, only what is physical (that is to say, how could you possibly tell the difference between one god that can create true meaning and true moral, and one that can not?). The philosophical power of god A, is that he can decide which of his creatures that goes to heaven and which ones that does not based upon their believes, which are philosophical.

You have made a catagory error in assuming that there is something, anything, independant of God in the common monotheistic view. To illustrate the point, the Greeks had seperate Gods for intangibles, like Law, Justice, Beauty, Wisdom, etc., etc. A monotheistic God incorporates all these aspects as well as the "Watchmaker".

[spankythehippo]

....And yet, you're in rage mode.

What does that tell you about this debate? I'm trying to have a civilised discussion and you bring your baggage about people who are not represented here at all, by anyone.

In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism. That is because it is not what we believe that we fight over, it is what we refuse to believe.

Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree.

I should have clarified the reasons for being enraged. I stubbed my toe twice while going back to my room. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand.

People who are not represented at all? Who was I talking about? Or who did you think I was talking about?


"In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism." You sure about that? I'm pretty sure wars have arisen, or at least conflicts of some sort, due to religious differences. Not all Atheists are pompous and arrogant about their beliefs. I don't really care if anyone is religious. You only live once, do what you will with it.

"Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree." On the contrary, it seems as if the opposite were true. I believe the phrase is "Let sleeping dogs lie."
If I believe something, and you believe something else, and there is no way of changing the other's mind, then it is wise to agree to disagree. Otherwise a debate sparks, followed by an argument, then a fight, then a battle, and finally a war.

[Papewaio]

6 million years old? Try 800x that. The Earth from pov of science is 4.54 billion years old.

[Viking]

but one merely applies Ockham's Razor to that theology to see that A: it is extravagently complex

Ockham has given you quite a weird razor. You cannot scrap a theory because one that is less complex emerges. In that case, you should remove the god element altogether, as it is not needed; it makes existence more complex than it needs to.

In science, it can be relevant; but not here. The reason why you can do it in science, is because science is typically supposed to be able to predict and describe; and if you cannot measure the difference between two theories, then there is no need for the more complex theory, as you will get the same results anyway; so you don't really care which theory is correct as long as there is no way to tell the difference (of course, some might keep the thought in the back of their head that, maybe, the more complex theory is actually the correct one). Relativistic versus non-relativistic physics is probably the best known case where the complex theory is the correct one, even though in many circumstances, the differences between the two are completely immeasurable.

B: such a setup implies a further creator who created those "Gods"

Not at all, they've always been there. They were never "created".

The monotheistic God is not constrained, therefore a constrained entity is not God, because God is only one, and HE cannot be limited, he is limitless in all things.

It's a good gambit, but it doesn't work because it doesn't answer the monotheistic claim, it merely tries to suplant it with a parralel one.

I am not trying to explain any monotheistic god in different terms (or something like that), I am just showing how you cannot tell apart a truly omnipotent god from one that holds power over only what is physical. Therefore, if you for whatever reason believe that a god exists, you can of him end up with e.g. the two different interpretations that I gave.

So another, higher, power created meaning.

Maybe meaning does not exist, maybe moral does not exist. We may assume either way. Moral, meaning and all that could have been around always, just like the god(s); it is only outside of their control. From our perspective, we can't tell the two scenarios apart.

You have made a catagory error in assuming that there is something, anything, independant of God in the common monotheistic view. To illustrate the point, the Greeks had seperate Gods for intangibles, like Law, Justice, Beauty, Wisdom, etc., etc. A monotheistic God incorporates all these aspects as well as the "Watchmaker".

It is true that religions and their followers assume their gods to be absolute, and not up for relativisation. I was not trying to dispute that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"In any case, religion has never caused a war, only Atheism." You sure about that? I'm pretty sure wars have arisen, or at least conflicts of some sort, due to religious differences. Not all Atheists are pompous and arrogant about their beliefs. I don't really care if anyone is religious. You only live once, do what you will with it.

Take another look at the part of the statement you didn't quote.

Muslims don't kill Christians because they believe Muhammed was His Prophet, they do it because they don't believe Christ was His Son.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many murderous non-religious regimes.

Like I said, religion is not, nor has it ever been, the problem.

[quote"Nothing is more important than dialogue among people who dissagree." On the contrary, it seems as if the opposite were true. I believe the phrase is "Let sleeping dogs lie."
If I believe something, and you believe something else, and there is no way of changing the other's mind, then it is wise to agree to disagree. Otherwise a debate sparks, followed by an argument, then a fight, then a battle, and finally a war.[/QUOTE]

The key was dialogue, not debate. Otherwise, you might think I thought you were going to hell, or something.

Ockham has given you quite a weird razor. You cannot scrap a theory because one that is less complex emerges. In that case, you should remove the god element altogether, as it is not needed; it makes existence more complex than it needs to.

In science, it can be relevant; but not here. The reason why you can do it in science, is because science is typically supposed to be able to predict and describe; and if you cannot measure the difference between two theories, then there is no need for the more complex theory, as you will get the same results anyway; so you don't really care which theory is correct as long as there is no way to tell the difference (of course, some might keep the thought in the back of their head that, maybe, the more complex theory is actually the correct one). Relativistic versus non-relativistic physics is probably the best known case where the complex theory is the correct one, even though in many circumstances, the differences between the two are completely immeasurable.

Ockham was a priest first, a scientist second - and he kept the two separate. the razor is to be applied differently in the two contexts, but in both cases the principle is sound, a more complex theory is more likely to be wrong either entirely or in its parts.

In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.

Not at all, they've always been there. They were never "created".

Why is there more than one of them?

Do they interact?

If they do not interact are the actually separate, or is it one God acting on multiple Universes?

Interaction requires limited entities that do not encompass the whole of existence, which violates the principle of "esse" from Aquinas.

I am not trying to explain any monotheistic god in different terms (or something like that), I am just showing how you cannot tell apart a truly omnipotent god from one that holds power over only what is physical. Therefore, if you for whatever reason believe that a god exists, you can of him end up with e.g. the two different interpretations that I gave.

No, I'm sorry - key to the conventional understanding of God is his command of the non-physical, the fundamental rules of the universe. If he does not control those that implies a greater being that does. Monotheism is as much about the theo as the mono.

Maybe meaning does not exist, maybe moral does not exist. We may assume either way. Moral, meaning and all that could have been around always, just like the god(s); it is only outside of their control. From our perspective, we can't tell the two scenarios apart.

That assumes the universe existed before God(s), implies a separate First Cause, higher God, etc., etc.

It is true that religions and their followers assume their gods to be absolute, and not up for relativisation. I was not trying to dispute that.

No, I know, my point is your alternative makes no internal logical sense.

It's a worse explanation, either your "limited gods" are not "Gods" (atheism again) or there is a higher "God" (monotheism again).

[Viking]

Ockham was a priest first, a scientist second - and he kept the two separate. the razor is to be applied differently in the two contexts, but in both cases the principle is sound, a more complex theory is more likely to be wrong either entirely or in its parts.

A probability is still only a probability, and is not a real argument in itself.

In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.

It is an entirely different question, but if you use Ochkams razor on it, it will shave any gods away.

Why is there more than one of them?

I have kept that possibility open so that my arguments become more general. Set the number of gods equal to one, and nothing changes from our perspective (one god per universe).

Interaction requires limited entities that do not encompass the whole of existence, which violates the principle of "esse" from Aquinas.

Aquinas has no monopoly on explaining what a god is and what a god is not.

No, I'm sorry - key to the conventional understanding of God is his command of the non-physical, the fundamental rules of the universe. If he does not control those that implies a greater being that does. Monotheism is as much about the theo as the mono.

It may collide with a traditional understanding of what a god is, but if these entities are not god, then I cannot see what on Earth they would be. Because, no, at no point is a greater being implied. In fact, no such greater being, force or existence exists. This god (or gods) is as powerful as anything gets.

We might once have held very wrong beliefs when it came to the planets, the stars and the sun; but we still call them the planets, the stars and the sun. That is unproblematic, because some of their earlier believed characterstics still hold true in one form or another.

That assumes the universe existed before God(s), implies a separate First Cause, higher God, etc., etc.

No, the relevant god (maybe he is the only god out there) created our universe. The universe has a beginning and a creation, the god does not.

[Papewaio]

In the case of God, removing Him from the creation of the universe creates more questions than it answers, and in any case the question of God's existence is entirely different to the question of his nature, one can theorise about the later but we must assume the former a priori to begin the argument.

From a science point of view there is no mass, space or time until the universe came about in the big bang. The razor is that the simplest measurable theory that predicts with the highest probability doesn't need a God in it.

Why add needless complexity when it isn't needed to explain a theory?

After all given the right scenario I'm sure even nuclear reactors can self assemble given enough time. Not all complex systems need a designer, most simple ones do.

[spankythehippo]

Take another look at the part of the statement you didn't quote.

Muslims don't kill Christians because they believe Muhammed was His Prophet, they do it because they don't believe Christ was His Son.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many murderous non-religious regimes.

Like I said, religion is not, nor has it ever been, the problem.

The key was dialogue, not debate. Otherwise, you might think I thought you were going to hell, or something.

OK. So what you're saying is that people that claim to kill in the name of god are not even religious, since they are disobeying the rules in their respective faiths? If so, then I would have to agree, given the amount of terrorists soiling the Islamic faith.


I'm going to leave a quote here, form Rise of The Dutch Republic by Motley.

Early in the year the most sublime sentence of death was promulgated which has ever been pronounced since the creation of the world. The Roman tyrant [Nero] wished that his enemies' heads were all upon a single neck, that he might strike them off at a blow; the Inquisition assisted Philip to place the heads of all his Netherlands subjects upon a single neck for the same fell purpose. Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.

After all given the right scenario I'm sure even nuclear reactors can self assemble given enough time. Not all complex systems need a designer, most simple ones do.

I understand your point, but I don't think nuclear reactors can self-assemble.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A probability is still only a probability, and is not a real argument in itself.

In the absence of definitive evidence, all we have is probability.

It is an entirely different question, but if you use Ochkams razor on it, it will shave any gods away.

A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

The alternative is "The Universe just IS" which is exactly like saying "God IS".

I have kept that possibility open so that my arguments become more general. Set the number of gods equal to one, and nothing changes from our perspective (one god per universe).

From our perspective, but in actuality it is completely different, and what appears to be God is not actually....

Aquinas has no monopoly on explaining what a god is and what a god is not.

Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.

It may collide with a traditional understanding of what a god is, but if these entities are not god, then I cannot see what on Earth they would be. Because, no, at no point is a greater being implied. In fact, no such greater being, force or existence exists. This god (or gods) is as powerful as anything gets.

well, Job is one of the earliest books in the Bible, Revelations the latest and both testify to heaven being full of beings, the least of which would appear as Gods to us.

It's a matter of perspective.

In other cultures Gabriel would be seen as a messenger God, but in Judaism he is just God's messenger.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK. So what you're saying is that people that claim to kill in the name of god are not even religious, since they are disobeying the rules in their respective faiths? If so, then I would have to agree, given the amount of terrorists soiling the Islamic faith.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and Islam has plenty of "kill the infidel, salt his land" stuff anyway.

What I'm saying is that people kill not because of what they believe, but because of beliefs they cannot tolerate in others - and that trait is a human one not a specifically religious one.

[Papewaio]

I understand your point, but I don't think nuclear reactors can self-assemble.

And the winner is. Mother Nature!

Oklo nuclear reactor was a natural formed water cooled nuclear reactor.

[spankythehippo]

And the winner is. Mother Nature!

Oklo nuclear reactor was a natural formed water cooled nuclear reactor.

Whoa. But it didn't really do anything, did it? Normal nuclear reactor's practically cause nuclear explosions, but they inhibit it's reactivity while exploiting the energy emitted.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and Islam has plenty of "kill the infidel, salt his land" stuff anyway.

What I'm saying is that people kill not because of what they believe, but because of beliefs they cannot tolerate in others - and that trait is a human one not a specifically religious one.

I noticed that you haven't made a rebuttal in regards to the quote from Rise of The Dutch Republic. So I assume that you can't disagree with what has happened in the past, and being recorded as it were.

[Sigurd]

A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

The alternative is "The Universe just IS" which is exactly like saying "God IS".
...

Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.

Aquinas version requires a causation in esse, meaning that this "essence" or "container" needs to continually control everything, or else everything would cease to exist. Quite differently to Plato and Aristotelian more deistic approach (watch maker).

To equate a necessary being cause to God begs the question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aquinas version requires a causation in esse, meaning that this "essence" or "container" needs to continually control everything, or else everything would cease to exist. Quite differently to Plato and Aristotelian more deistic approach (watch maker).

To equate a necessary being cause to God begs the question.

Yes, but that's because Aquinas identified the essential flaw in the "watchmaker", and his "esse" has been the model for not only subsequent theistic systems, but also some deists like Spinoza.

If God is identified with the universe as a whole then his existence is beyond doubt and only his nature is in question. What's more, not matter what "character" we might attribute to Him, he must be unlimted.

at this stage in human history proposing some sort of limited God is not only unnecessary, it borders on childish.

I noticed that you haven't made a rebuttal in regards to the quote from Rise of The Dutch Republic. So I assume that you can't disagree with what has happened in the past, and being recorded as it were.

I seriously doubt the factual nature of that quote, and I'm apparently in good company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lothrop_Motley

For one thing, I do not see how the Holy Inquisition could condemn anyone to death, given that it's sole purpose was to root out heresy and then hand the guilty over to the Secular Law.

Beyond that, I know nothing of the specifics of Dutch non-Conformism, but I am dubious of the claim that 3 million people were condemned, the "Holy Office" presumably means the Pope, or the court of the Inquisition, if so such a record would be in the Vatican Archives (along with the Ark and the lost translation of the English Bible, not to mention prrof Gore won in 2,000), but seriously, it would be in the archive.

[Kralizec]

Upon February 16, 1568, a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were excepted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition, and ordered it to be carried into instant execution, without regard to age, sex, or condition. This is probably the most concise death warrant that was ever framed. Three millions of people, men, women, and children, were sentenced to the scaffold in three lines.

The quotation doesn't seem plausible to me, if only for the reason that I find it hard to believe that there were three million people in those provinces. IIRC the Netherlands had somewhere between 2-3 million inhabitants in the latter 19th century. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that to get to 3 million in the 16th century you'd have to add up the "southern Netherlands" (and you probably still wouldn't arrive at that number), i.e. the general area of modern Belgium. And that wouldn't make sense, because at the time it was still largely catholic.

[Viking]

In the absence of definitive evidence, all we have is probability.

Which is completely inadequate for this purpose.

A fundamental of the universe is that all things have a cause, in order to avoid infinite regression one must postulate a cause outside the rules of the universe, the First Cause which is not hidebound by our laws of action and reaction.

I don't see what the problems would be with the 'universe' being infinitely old. The observerd causes for the universe are always inside, not outside.

Except that no one has bettered him, and the idea of "esse" is not only unasailable, but it fits with our modern understanding of the physical universe.

His arguments are the in contex of religion. The interpretation(s) that I am dealing with assumes the religions to be wrong on one or more points. For this particular context, it matters not if we are actually to call this entity/these entities for 'god(s)', only that it/they would have the same appearance and thus be able to be interpreted as the 'god(s)' we find in religions.

[spankythehippo]

I seriously doubt the factual nature of that quote, and I'm apparently in good company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lothrop_Motley

For one thing, I do not see how the Holy Inquisition could condemn anyone to death, given that it's sole purpose was to root out heresy and then hand the guilty over to the Secular Law.

Beyond that, I know nothing of the specifics of Dutch non-Conformism, but I am dubious of the claim that 3 million people were condemned, the "Holy Office" presumably means the Pope, or the court of the Inquisition, if so such a record would be in the Vatican Archives (along with the Ark and the lost translation of the English Bible, not to mention prrof Gore won in 2,000), but seriously, it would be in the archive.

Alright, how about direct orders from Pope Innocent III?

Therefore by this present apostolical writing, we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and, if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword.

How about this?

That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history. The memorials, indeed, of many of her persecutions are now so scanty that it is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.

Here's more.

The church has persecuted.... Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of the church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots, and the Spanish Inquisition. Wherever and whenever there is honest Catholicity, there will be a clear distinction drawn between truth and error, and Catholicity and all forms of error. When she thinks it good to use physical force, she will use it.

Hey, look! I found more!

The Catholic Church is a respecter of conscience and of liberty.... She has, and she loudly proclaims that she has, a 'horror of blood.' Nevertheless, when confronted by heresy, she does not content herself with persuasion; arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture. She creates tribunals like those of the Inquisition, she calls the laws of the state to her aid, if necessary she encourages a crusade, or a religious war, and all her 'horror of blood' practically culminates into urging the secular power to shed it, which proceeding is almost more odious—for it is less frank—than shedding it herself. Especially did she act thus in the sixteenth century with regard to Protestants. Not content to reform morally, to preach by example, to convert people by eloquent and holy missionaries, she lit in Italy, in the Low Countries, and above all in Spain, the funeral piles of the Inquisition. In France under Francis I and Henry II, in England under Mary Tudor, she tortured the heretics, whilst both in France and Germany during the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century if she did not actually begin, at any rate she encouraged and actively aided, the religious wars.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sigh.

Alright, how about direct orders from Pope Innocent III?

Yep, that looks like an authentic Bull, translated obviously.

Now read it.....

"you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them"

i.e. suppress the doctrines and excomunicate the miscreants until they recant.

"if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword."

This means, "in extremis hand the ringleaders over to the Secular Authorities for punishment"

Not, "kill, kill, kill."

How about this?

Not a primary source, over a hundred years old. Bring me something current - and not anti-Catholic propeganda.

Here's more.

I assume a magazine over 100 year old? Not evidence of anything, except that St. Louis had fundamentalists back then.

Hey, look! I found more!

More non-evidence, not a primary source.

In any case, it agrees with me that the Church itself does not "do" violence directly.

ANYWAY, none of this is about my actual point.

The Roman Catholic Church never had any executed because it believes in transubstantiation, it had them executed because it doesn't believe priests shouls marry.

[spankythehippo]

Sigh.



Yep, that looks like an authentic Bull, translated obviously.

Now read it.....

"you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them"

i.e. suppress the doctrines and excomunicate the miscreants until they recant.

"if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword."

This means, "in extremis hand the ringleaders over to the Secular Authorities for punishment"

Not, "kill, kill, kill."



Not a primary source, over a hundred years old. Bring me something current - and not anti-Catholic propeganda.



I assume a magazine over 100 year old? Not evidence of anything, except that St. Louis had fundamentalists back then.



More non-evidence, not a primary source.

In any case, it agrees with me that the Church itself does not "do" violence directly.

ANYWAY, none of this is about my actual point.

The Roman Catholic Church never had any executed because it believes in transubstantiation, it had them executed because it doesn't believe priests shouls marry.

So you're dismissing evidence on the basis of it being "old"? That has nothing to do with the accuracy of the evidence at hand (albeit, you could be right, and ALL the evidence is wrong). It is neither contemporary or modern, but it still sheds some light upon the matter. Because a source is not primary, does not make it incorrect. Hell, maybe the author's of these secondary sources had access to primary sources that no longer exist.

And you say that the evidence is not a primary source, AND to bring you something more modern. Aren't you contradicting yourself? All modern sources are secondary, because they are merely stating observations based on what they can see from evidence they have gathered themselves.

And say that it IS propaganda. Why would the Catholic church garner so much hate? Is it because of something they did? Because people were xenophobic? Care to share your thoughts (i.e. evidence) about the relations between the Catholic church and the general masses? Out of curiousity, of course.