reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Nov 27, 2006 12:31:51 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 27, 2006 12:31:51 GMT -4
you are ignoring the essential element of faith. Faith is the most important aspect of a religion and is the key distinction between agnostics and the religious. Although neither can prove God either way, the religious have faith (which can be both a positive and negative influence) while the agnostics have none.
I have been an agnostic for most of my life, but I think I may have tricked myself recently into believing in God. I was thinking about the Big Bang theory and I realized that while it satisfies the problem of describing why the universe is as it is today, it does not satisfy the problem of describing how all of the matter in the universe got here in the first place. If the universal law "no matter can be created nor destroyed" is true, then there is no logical explanation for how the matter of the universe first came into existence.
Enter God. God created this matter. Nothing else can logically explain it. In this way, I believe in God. However, I cannot believe in anything more specific than the theory that "God created the universe" because anything more descriptive is a product of man and therefore wrong. All religions describe God in some fashion more specific than the abstract notion of the creator of the Universe. All mythology attached to God is a product of man because nothing can be knowable about God except that God created the universe. For this reason, I personally could never worship any God within a religion. I would be worshiping the mythologies surrounding God as much as I would be worshipping God itself and I cannot do that.
That being said, I have no qualms with other people worshipping God within any religion. Religion exists for many reasons other than worship.
|
|
|
God
Nov 27, 2006 13:53:56 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2006 13:53:56 GMT -4
If the universal law "no matter can be created nor destroyed" is true, then there is no logical explanation for how the matter of the universe first came into existence. That's conservation of energy, of which mass is but one form. I don't claim to understand the detail, but some cosmologists appear to argue that if you do the accounting correctly, the net energy of the universe is zero, so there was nothing that needed to be created. edit to add link: www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
God
Nov 27, 2006 13:54:39 GMT -4
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 27, 2006 13:54:39 GMT -4
Unfortunately "God" does not so much answer the question of where it all came from as defer it: "turtles all the way down!" as they saying goes. Some questions we may never have enough information to answer.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Nov 27, 2006 14:00:21 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2006 14:00:21 GMT -4
Enter God. God created this matter. Nothing else can logically explain it. How does God logically explain it? Doesn't it beg the question, "and where did God come from?" So in your opinion the worship of God, who you accept merely as an impersonal "ultimate cause" is meaningless, correct? If so then I fail to see much difference between your position and that of an agnostic, Bill. If you don't believe God interacts with us in any way then what is the practical difference between that and believing that He/it doesn't exist in the first place?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Nov 29, 2006 10:41:16 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 29, 2006 10:41:16 GMT -4
That's the point. It is not logical because there can be no logical beginning. God did not come from anywhere because God too is abstract and illogical. As I said, God is unknowable.
No. Worship is entirely up to the individual. Worship is attached to God as a diety, a being to be worshipped, and I do not oppose to the worship of God if God is construed as a diety to be worshipped. This is all really subjective. I am not suggesting that anybody should reach the same conclusion I do. Even if I were religious I could never truly believe that God interacts with us. God could never have influence on our level of existence because God is illogical and unknowable. Belief in a higher power is important to some and not to others, but does not mean that belief should automatically include interaction.
[quoteThat's conservation of energy, of which mass is but one form.
I don't claim to understand the detail, but some cosmologists appear to argue that if you do the accounting correctly, the net energy of the universe is zero, so there was nothing that needed to be created.[/quote]
Thank you. The point still remains that the energy of the universe has to have come from somewhere and there is no logical way for it to exist.
I haven't read the article yet, but I am assuming that given the infinite nature of the universe, the measurable energy spread out over infinite would measure zero. Seeing as how there obviously is energy around us, I consider it a moot point.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Nov 29, 2006 10:46:30 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 29, 2006 10:46:30 GMT -4
Unfortunately "God" does not so much answer the question of where it all came from as defer it: "turtles all the way down!" as they saying goes. Some questions we may never have enough information to answer. I think the mythology aspect of religion is centered almost entirely on this point. Religion answers the unanswerable. The problem is, things that were unanswerable a couple thousand years ago are answerable now, and yet the religion cannot adapt. I think the entire creationist movement exists because Christianity does not adapt to knowledge gained about the universe. Your last sentence is the reason why I place God as the answer. There is no asnwer and there never will be an answer to the question of the source of all energy. The answer (to me) must be God.
|
|
|
God
Nov 29, 2006 11:01:35 GMT -4
Post by gwiz on Nov 29, 2006 11:01:35 GMT -4
Thank you. The point still remains that the energy of the universe has to have come from somewhere and there is no logical way for it to exist. I haven't read the article yet, but I am assuming that given the infinite nature of the universe, the measurable energy spread out over infinite would measure zero. Seeing as how there obviously is energy around us, I consider it a moot point. No, they argue that positive forms of energy are cancelled by negative ones, so there is zero net energy in total. I think it's a bit like creation/anihilation of particle pairs. One particle has positive charge, the other has negative, but the net charge in the system remains zero through the whole process.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Nov 29, 2006 12:23:58 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Nov 29, 2006 12:23:58 GMT -4
No. Worship is entirely up to the individual. Worship is attached to God as a diety, a being to be worshipped, and I do not oppose to the worship of God if God is construed as a diety to be worshipped. This is all really subjective. I am not suggesting that anybody should reach the same conclusion I do. Even if I were religious I could never truly believe that God interacts with us. God could never have influence on our level of existence because God is illogical and unknowable. Belief in a higher power is important to some and not to others, but does not mean that belief should automatically include interaction. If God cannot influence our level of existence and is inherently illogical and unknowable then I would see no point in venerating him in any way. It would be like worshiping gravity.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Nov 30, 2006 8:08:36 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 30, 2006 8:08:36 GMT -4
Thank you. The point still remains that the energy of the universe has to have come from somewhere and there is no logical way for it to exist. I haven't read the article yet, but I am assuming that given the infinite nature of the universe, the measurable energy spread out over infinite would measure zero. Seeing as how there obviously is energy around us, I consider it a moot point. No, they argue that positive forms of energy are cancelled by negative ones, so there is zero net energy in total. I think it's a bit like creation/anihilation of particle pairs. One particle has positive charge, the other has negative, but the net charge in the system remains zero through the whole process. Oh I get it. Thanks, that sounds reasonable.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Nov 30, 2006 8:15:57 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 30, 2006 8:15:57 GMT -4
No. Worship is entirely up to the individual. Worship is attached to God as a diety, a being to be worshipped, and I do not oppose to the worship of God if God is construed as a diety to be worshipped. This is all really subjective. I am not suggesting that anybody should reach the same conclusion I do. Even if I were religious I could never truly believe that God interacts with us. God could never have influence on our level of existence because God is illogical and unknowable. Belief in a higher power is important to some and not to others, but does not mean that belief should automatically include interaction. If God cannot influence our level of existence and is inherently illogical and unknowable then I would see no point in venerating him in any way. It would be like worshiping gravity. That's kind of the way I feel. I do not feel the need to worship God because I cannot accept any idea more specific than God as the creator of the universe. As I said earlier, I'm not expecting anybody to think the same way. It's my personal belief. Others in this forum have been pretty steadily attacking your religion on the Mormonism thread, yet you do the same thing here. Do you have no sympathy for my beliefs because you disagree with them? I wholeheartedly disagree with Mormonism but I don't feel the need to attack it. They are your beliefs and it's not my place to trample on them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Nov 30, 2006 12:37:26 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Nov 30, 2006 12:37:26 GMT -4
Am I attacking your belief or agreeing with it? I've basically said, "if I believed the way you do I would act the way you do."
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Dec 1, 2006 9:25:12 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 1, 2006 9:25:12 GMT -4
Yeah you've said that but you've also basically said that it would be pointless and stupid.
And please don't call me Bill again. It's a bit insulting.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Dec 1, 2006 12:34:07 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Dec 1, 2006 12:34:07 GMT -4
Sorry if I have offended you by calling you Bill. I think I thought I was responding to someone else originally (either that or I'm just too used to responding to Bill's posts on the other thread).
I didn't say that you were being pointless and stupid. I said that from your perspective worshiping God would be pointless and stupid.
In other words I was saying that given what you believe you have acted perfectly rationally in chosing not to participate in any organized religion.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
God
Dec 2, 2006 7:23:16 GMT -4
Post by reynoldbot on Dec 2, 2006 7:23:16 GMT -4
I can understand that. Apology accepted.
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. Again, my views are supported by not having the need for faith. I personally do not see the need to worship God or participate in a religion, but that's because my needs are different. Other people have different needs and life experiences, and faith and worhip may be a much more important part of their life, In that way, I do not find worshipping God to be pointless in general.
And thank you for calling me rational. Sometimes I wonder...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
God
Dec 4, 2006 13:13:42 GMT -4
Post by Jason on Dec 4, 2006 13:13:42 GMT -4
Okay, now that I've established that I wasn't trying to offend you before, it's time to offend you. Don't you think it's a bit condescending to say "I don't need it, and I think other people are basically fooling themselves when they join an organized religion, but I have no problem with them doing so,"? Granted you have pointed out that there are other possible benefits for participating in organized religion - mostly social - but you really think that all those religious people have got it wrong, don't you? That if they had a little more of an intellectual attitude towards their religion (ANY organized religion) they would realize that it has some serious problems?
|
|