So if you don’t beleive I exist, you won’t see me and you won’t feel it if I punch you?
Damn, is that Invisible Pink Unicorn back? I thought we got rid of it.
I guess you didn’t see my previous post, so I’ll post it again:
[…]why make the assumption that ANYTHING “happened before the big bang”. I’d like to borrow a really nifty and concise explanation someone else posted on another forum - Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole.
In other words, to ask that question, you are in effect assuming that ANOTHER time continuum exists OUTSIDE of our universe. I suppose this could be possible, but why assume it? All available evidence suggests that time is merely a dimension of the universe, which renders the concept of “before the universe” meaningless.
Now, the question remains - why do we have trouble intuitively grasping the concept? I believe it is because of our nature as human beings. We see our lives as a progression - we are born, we live our life, and we die - yet we know that others have lived before us and still others will live after we are gone. We live on Earth in this manner, so wouldn’t our brains naturally develop to understand the universe in this way? We have no intuitive understanding of the limits of time because it is irrelevant to our daily existence.
Although I disagree with your reasoning, let’s assume you are correct, for the sake of argument: Your conclusion is that some sort of something created the universe, but it’s not necessarily sentient. That doesn’t seem to justify changing your life in any way. I submit that believing in a creator for which there is no information as to it’s characteristics is effectively equivalent to it’s non-existence.
Your teacher is an ass.
But Gaudere, I do, I DO, I DO believe you exist! … so it’s a moot point… (and it still allows my statement to be true.) ~grin~
Fear, IMO, is still one of the greatest motivators to believe in the supernatural. Fear of death, fear of "hell’, fear of the unknown that follows death (purportedly anyway), fear of being alone, fear of opposing your elders, etc.
Gaudere, I don’t believe you can punch me if you don’t exist.
So if I don’t believe you exist, then you can’t punch me, and I won’t feel your non-punching.
Of course, you could just prove you by exhibiting the punch.
I’m waiting.
Still waiting.
I waited 5 minutes. Didn’t feel a punch. There is no God here. Don’t even go there.
Implications for the implication that God exists are unclear.
How about your belief that believing the unproven is irrational?
Or, to take another approach, how about the Reflexivity Principle? (Think back to your days of elementary school math.)
I’m not so sure…
For the people who believe, they see signs all around.
For the people who do not believe, those signs are not seen (not seen as “signs” anyway)
In the absence of “Gaudere’s punch”, neither side can (to use the words in the OP) “justify” their belief to the satisfaction of the other side. The implication seems to me to be that the Truth is unprovable, therefore the only thing that matters is the Belief.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Algernon *
In the absence of “Gaudere’s punch”, neither side can (to use the words in the OP) “justify” their belief to the satisfaction of the other side.
And I can certainly see how distasteful it is for some when we natter on and on about something that can’t be seen, felt, heard, or smelled, like Gaudere.
Can anyone “really” “prove” that “they” “believe” in “Gaudere”?
I don’t “think” so.
Before I head out for a week’s vacation, away from any computer, I want to clarify something…
In my jocular response to Gaudere’s comment, I’m afraid I didn’t really address the point.
Specifically, my answer to your hypothetical question is “That’s right. If I don’t believe in you, and your punches are so subtle that they indistinguishable from a gentle breeze, or an itchy skin for that matter, then for all practical purposes I haven’t seen or felt the punch. Clearly if you exist, and you punched me hard enough, them perhaps I would believe in you.”
(Geez, this is dangerous territory… to be challenging an Admin to punch me… what am I thinking?)
And upon preview, I see that Newton’s meter has expressed what I was trying to say better than I have.
Would it be in poor taste (or just bad timing) to wish everyone a Happy Easter?
Andros, I don’t get you at all. Why do you see a necessity for God to exist in order for love to exist? Surely people would feel, and act on, any and all varieties of love regardless of the existance or non-existance of any God or Gods? As witness the fact that love has existed throughout human history, among people of no religion as well as among people of (all sorts of) religion. As a matter of fact, I think some forms of love can be found among some of the smarter animal species.
On the other hand, throughout history, people have done some, shall we say, very un-loving things in the name of God and religion.
Mister V, what’s your problem. Why do you care what someone else believes? It’s a personal choice to believe or not believe. And you can’t say that someone can’t reply with the answer “faith” because that’s what every religion or belief is! Faith is belief in things that aren’t physical
I’ll assume that you’ve had a bad experience and you’ve decided to come in here and rant about the way other people think… Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to question someone’s reason for believing in God?
There is no hardcore physical proof that He exists. You just believe it, or you don’t. It’s personal choice.
I like chili on my hot dogs. You wanna ask me why I eat chili on my hot dogs? Cause it tastes good, that’s why. What? I can’t prove that it tastes good?!?..oh, great, he’s got me…but I bet you can’t prove that it tastes bad, either. Huh? It’s personal choice? Fine, if you put it that way…:mad:
You don’t get andros at all? Then this whole thread has been for naught.
I can’t speak for andros, but I think it said that back when we were all slinging some pretty wild absolutes around. Maybe God isn’t required for a universe with love, but he enables some kinds of love for some kinds of people. I know that I love an entire class of people that I didn’t just a few years ago. And you’re lucky, because it includes you.
And your rebuttal might be “yeah, but you don’t need God to love your neighbor”. Maybe not, but that’s the way I choose to do it.
But how rational would it be if we took the ill use that some people made of religion and used that as a reason to reject religion? Or to make a conclusion about the existence of God?
Some people have problems with alcohol, but I dearly love my bottle of Lagavulin. Some men commit rapes, but I think I’ll keep my little unit.
kg m²/s² (and Erg)
Very well put, Kabbes! Jesus could have been good and wise (wise in the sence of having a lot of insight into people, a lot of knowledge of scriptures, a lot of knowledge of the world in which he lived, etc.) and yet he could still have been mistaken in his belief that he was the literal son of God. If that is actually what he believed. OTOH, one can take the position that everyone is a son or daugher of God; Jesus no more and no less so then anyone.
Do we know for sure which Jesus was saying? “Literal son of God in a way no one else is” vs. “child of God just as everyone is”? The Bible story of Jesus’ conception and birth – is Jesus himself supposed to have told this story as literal truth, or is it something that was told about him by others?
I’ll agree that the O.P. didn’t phrase his question very nicely, but I’m curious why, if you object so strongly, you still chose to answer?
So belief is simply a choice? You just decide, “I’ll believe xyz because I like it that way”, just as if you are deciding whether you like chili or not?
Seems odd to me. I always rather thought that you should believe something only if it’s TRUE. I would like to believe that I am king of the world, but I’m not, so I don’t believe it. Note that by saying this, I am not ascribing any truth value as to whether God exists; I’m just saying “I like it better that way” seems a weak criteria for deciding if something is true.
p.s. Nice screen name:)
Blowero, that was the point I was trying to get at. You believe things to be true or untrue. I wasn’t trying to say that it was true because I want it to be. For instance, I could say that I believe that the color green is green. Seeing as how you can see the color, that’s a pretty easy thing to believe in. But what if I said that the color green wasn’t green. It’s purple. Am I wrong? By contemporary standards, yes. But I still believe that it’s purple and not green.
It could be said that I was wrong for believing that color to be purple, because green is green after all. You can see the difference between the colors. You can’t see God. The physical barrier that so proved me wrong in the “Purple Exercise”, vanishes.
I just don’t think the existence of God is something that someone can readily debate, because it all boils down to personal belief.
One could however debate standards of certain religions, should they be contradictory to other teachings, or the Bible,(I’ve met some people who believe it to have loops holes.) These things are in a sense physical. You can see religion taking place and how people carry it out. You can see and touch a bible. Being of a physical nature, you can more easily find the faults in these things.
I just don’t think the O.P. even had much of an argument to come in here with. If he would want to debate the ethics or standards of a certain religion, then would be the time to debate.
Hope I didn’t make anyone mad or anything. I respect the O.P.'s views as much as I respect the views of someone who disagrees with him. I’m not calling anyone wrong or anyone right. I’m just saying that it was gone about the wrong way.
P.S- Blow, thanks. 
Hazel,
Actually, it’s even simpler than Newton Meter thinks.
God is love.
QED.
Well, not to beat a dead horse… but God=Love is only a true statement to those who believe it to be true.
And shagadelicmysteryman, I think you’re being a little harsh on Mister V, who attempted to clarify his OP as follows…
It sounds to me that he’s not so much advocating a Belief, as inquiring as to the rational behind the Beliefs of others.
I happen to agree with you, but it sure is interesting reading these Great Debate threads that always seem to run multiple pages. I always feel more enlightened afterward, even if it doesn’t cause me to modify my own Beliefs at all.
I note you ignored my example of wind and water == regular waves. Or do you think God personally pushes every wave and makes them regularly spaced and shaped?
Well, you’re arguing that natural laws prove God. How do we get these natural laws? We look at the world and find things that appear to be invariably true, and then assume they are laws until proven otherwise. However, you are accepting as a natural law (“nothing can come from nothing/everything must have a cause”) something that need not be true. First you have to show that there was “nothing” “before” the universe existed; then you have to show that though you accept that something came from nothing/some event happened without a cause, it is still a natural law that nothing can come from nothing/no event can happen without a cause.
When faced with a violation of this “natural law” that “all things must have a cause”, you assume that it is still in effect and therefore things apparently happening without a cause must be caused by God. However, in the results I have seen in quantum physics, we do have many events that do not appear to have a cause. Which would mean, I suppose, that God is personally prying out every electron even emmitted that we cannot find a “cause” for. It is as if you think our guesses about natural laws were handed down from on high and could not be mistaken. What is the reasonable response: you have seen something many times, so you consider it a law. Then you see something that contradicts this law. Do you A) assume perhaps you were wrong about the original law or B) assume the law is still correct, therefore some sort of supernatural being must exist?
If I may interject here… I think that’s clearly a trivial, extremely low level of organization, with minimal signs of order. Ultimately, all that does is loosely replicate some of the harmonics present in the wind itself.
It’s liike photocopying the letter “X,” over and over and over. Does this pattern contain information? A little bit, sure. However, it’s repetitious information that’s exceedingly simple, and which is simply a loose replication of the info present in an external machine (e.g. the original photocopied “X,” or a subset of the wave harmonics present in the wind).
I never said I “believe” anything. I hate the word and try to stay away from it. I do accept certain things as a given based on my experience, but I am always willing to accept the possibility of my incorrectness - unlike most religious folks who are absolutely sure they know the exact nature of god and the origin of reality, and fail to accept the limits of their own perception which could allow them to make mistakes. I haven’t met a human yet who deosn’t make mistakes, why should anyone believe they can make a perfect decision when it comes to god?
I accept as a given that the chair is there, but I am willing to accept the possibility that I am a brain in a vat and all of my perception is an illusion. I do come up with theories that I use to make predictions (the chair will support me). The closer my predictions come to how reality (as percieved by me) behaves, the more likely the theory is correct.
I did not bring up the murder scenario as a metaphor for those who believe in religion. I used it as a way of pointing out that while there may be “judgement thresholds” between different people concerning what is rational to accept, there is a range that that is reasonable. It requires a bit of common sense to know not to believe the guy who says “I didn’t do it”, until you’ve looked at available evidence.
That’s why these religious debates grow frustrating to me. People answer my request for evidence that would justify a belief in a specific (or any) god with statements like “Well how do you KNOW the chair is there?” - effectively throwing common sense out the window.
DaLovin’ Dj