Well…sometimes the greatest truths are entirely mundane, once you finally discover them. Life can’t always be an episode of 24 – at least, most of the time, it’s not.
If someone can see God in that, suddenly the reverence for tortillas with vaguely Jesus-like burn patterns becomes comprehensible.
What does “metaphysics” have to do with it? She was indulging in a fantasy and hurting people in the process; no “metaphysics” there.
Already mentioned by RitterSport. She let people suffer under the theory that suffering is good for the soul, and to prop up her own faith. And she and her organization failed to use the money she was donated to help people.
Seriously? Maybe I’m missing something, but the majesty of the observable universe, and the fundamental forces which define spacetime itself, seem far more impressive to me than the equivalent of Al Bundy sweating Elvis. :rolleyes:
All I see is an op-ed piece about the church’s medieval stance on abortion, which doesn’t mention Teresa at all. If that’s all you got, well…
Al Bundy sweating Elvis?
Anyhoo, the universe is sufficiently impressive on its own - why the need to invent a god element? It seems… immature to me. Unnecessary. Almost insulting, actually, like arrogantly assuming it was made just for you by a god who also takes a personal interest in your fate.
So atheists are deluded because they don’t realize that the moon rising over the horizon is evidence for a higher intelligence? Am I understanding you correctly?
So, thinking we are tiny and unimportant in the context of a very old and very old universe is arrogant? As opposed to thinking that the entire universe was created more or less for us?
As for ignorance, I personally did not claim knowledge. But my colleagues are now building chips with features 28 billionths of a meter wide. They only work because we have a deep and fundamental understanding of the way the universe works, through science, and we can predict the effects we see. No prayers or demons are involved.
I just completed reading a book of some of the writings of scientists from the 15th to 18th centuries. In the beginning they commonly spoke of God’s plan, and how their work showed the glory of God. By the end, when they actually understood how things worked a lot better, they abandoned this. No longer necessary for the most part, I think.
As for you, don’t call names. Just put up.
You have not demonstrated we are discussing any type of intelligence, human, alien or border collie.
Say you are wrong about this higher intelligence. How would the universe be different from what it is now? How do you propose to distinguish your universe with a higher intelligence from mine without one?
Have you learned the concept of the null hypothesis?
The fundamental forces are about the only gap, (perhaps folded into a 14th dimension) which you can hide your higher intelligence in. That we don’t understand it yet doesn’t mean an intelligence is involved.
H[sub]0[/sub], H[sub]0[/sub], H[sub]0[/sub]…
It’s my faith that the universe could not exist without higher intelligence, or vice versa. (Though I suppose the latter part must be true by definition…)
But let’s back up a bit. I know, there’s a lot of cosmologists & quantum physicists here who’ve devoted their lives to studying the limits of the known multiverse, and who are possibly annoyed at some Heisenbergian Fanboy claiming that this knowledge suggests some spectacular, yet elusive, divine truth about everything. That said, masters of scientific method run the risk of not seeing the forest for the trees – kinda like the adage about how explaining why a joke is funny makes the joke cease to be funny.
Having said that, I’ll concede that anyone’s viewpoint regarding “higher intelligence” is entirely relative. Some people’s minds require a sense of magic, mystery & wonder about the universe, merely to balance out the boring, pointless routines of everyday modern life; while others (especially present company!) have no such need for God, Karma, or belief in some extraordinary power we can never comprehend, and that’s equally fine.
Where I draw the line, however, is when people insist that their particular viewpoint is absolute truth, and demand a ridiculous burden of proof when their faith in Absolutely Nothing is confronted by Maybe Something. After all – the knowledge you discover (be it the way flowers germinate, or how to dismantle an atomic bomb) is meaningless by itself – it’s what you do with that knowledge that matters, that’s all.
“Any evidence at all” is not “a ridiculous burden of proof”. :rolleyes:
Seriously, the epistemology you’re espousing can be used to justify a belief in ANYTHING: “How dare you claim that unicorns are imaginary! Open your mind to the possibility of unicorns! A universe without unicorns would be devoid of magic, mystery and wonder! It would be a dreary place indeed!”
Where do you draw the line? Unicorns? Leprechauns? Poltergeists? What other things do you believe in despite a complete lack of evidence?
You seemed to completely miss the gist of my post. Therefore, let me start over. For shits and giggles, let’s say that tomorrow the sky parts and a man in white robes with a long white beard decends from the heavens and introduces himself to you as the Christian God, after which he materializes a new species of fish out of thin air. Chances are that you still wouldn’t admit that the man before you is God, as you’d either consider yourself to be crazy\hallucinating, thus rationalizing the event away, or you’d play your own version of Occham’s Razor, admitting that while you can’t explain what you just saw, that there is a more plausible explanation for it than God (i.e., the entity before you is really an advanced being from another planet). In the end, it’s not that there can be no proof of God, but rather there is no proof of God that would lead you to believe that God exists, as in our mind there will always be a simpler, more rational, explanation than God-- even if you do not know what that explanation is. It’s like the god of the gap thing only in reverse.
Some have been hoaxes. Some, however, have not been, though that’s never stopped athests (yes, I’m generalizing a bit here) from emphatically stating that alrge groups of people did not experience the thing they say they did, or dismissing said occreences as mass hysteria’
Okay. I’ll bite. Explain to my small, uneducated and feeble theistic mind how religion, or its ‘side’, is ridiculous, incoherent and denies feeble laws. And try to do so without focusing on the most narrow amd stringent of views and extrapolating from such a narrow view and focus a universal truth about religion as a whole, as then you’ be arguing against what more or less amounts to a straw man.
No, it’s that the Christian God is an extremely silly idea. One that contradicts everything we know of how the world works and makes no sense in itself. Again:
Well? Such a god-hamster is significantly more plausible than the Christian God; what evidence would convince you it existed? Why should I take the Christian God any more seriously?
Because that’s all they’ve ever been, fraud, ignorance and hysteria. That of course is why you didn’t mention any that weren’t; they don’t exist.
Because it’s all completely made up, with zero evidence for any of it. Because when its made actual claims about the real world its always turned out to be wrong. Because spirits and gods and souls and all the rest flatly contradict the physical laws we know.
Do you take the idea of Zeus being real seriously? How about elves? God-hamsters?
I’m a sucker so I’ll further bite. And how do you figure?
Who cares what you decide to take seriously or what you consider to be more plausible? That has absolutely nothing to do with my initial post, as my initial post had absolutely nothing to do with what you consider plausible, but rather the fact that there is no proof that could legitimately be given to an atheist that (s)he wouldn’t immediately rationalize away. Regardless of the proof given, the atheist, assuming (S)he doesn’t outright dismiss the proof as not being given, will always invoke Occham’s Razor by arguing that there is a simple, if even currently unknown explanation for everything that doesn’t involve God. I’d like to call it the ABG (anything but God) syndrome. You didn’t disagree with this point earlier and you still haven’t, which leads me to believe that, on some level, you realize this is true’ Now whether you admit it is another thing.
Let’s start with something simple. Since it’s probably one of, if not the best known occurrence, even talked about by one blowhard (Dawkins), what do you think of the Miracle of Our Lady Fatima? Fraud? Ignorance? Lies? Mass hysteria?
Never trust anyone who uses absolute modifiers (yes, the irony is purposeful) and cherry picks claims.
[quote]
Because spirits and gods and souls and all the rest flatly contradict the physical laws we know.[ /quote]
That doesn’t make any sense. The only way to prove that spirits, gods and souls contradict the physical laws we know would be to observe said spirits, gods and souls contradicting said physical laws. However, if we were to observe said spirits, gods and souls contradicting said laws, then we’d have to amend our understanding of said laws as they wouldn’t be indicative of the physical world, of which spirits, gods and souls would exist. So I feel compelled to ask, have you ever observed a spirit, god or soul? And how do you know how spirits, gods or souls work, anyhow?
I’m amused by the false sense of intellectual superiority.
I also watched the Seven signs of the Apocalypse, and the same signs have been going on for centuries (even before there were humans living on earth). There have alwys been wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes in various places,volcanos erupting,plagues etc. red tides have been happening for as long as man can remember. If Jesus was telling the truth,or was mis-quoted, the end of the world would have come in His time. He is quoted as saying the stars will fall,the moon turn red, the sun not give it’s light. If the sun did not give it’s light the earth would cease to exist for human s to live here, the stars could be said to be in a constant state of falling ( the plants are not stars) there are billions or more of galaxeys, that contain billions of stars and some have planets,or a solar system. People didn’t know that in Jesus’s time.
Jesus also said He would come in His Father’s Glory while some of them standing there were still alive. It didn’t happen, the scripture said He rose from the dead,( even His friends who saw Him every day didn’t recognize Him). then ascended into heaven,so He was wrong or misquoted ,because he didn’t return in his Fathers glory and those people have long vanished from the earth!
If john was in his 90’s as is taught when he wrote the Book Of Revlations, he could have been a senile old man with mental problems…who can say for certian?
They also state that Mother Theresa also didn’t believe in God(at least for awhile). I saw on TV some ministers who admitted they did not believe in God but had to keep up a pretense because it was their occupation!
Have you ever observed a spirit, god or soul?
Assuming you haven’t, why do you think they exist at all?
Seriously, what is the indication, to you, that these exist?
The whole Truth is not objective, only partial truth, or they way different people see it. LIke the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant, or a tree at different seasons. The full truth is what is, so just looking at a tree in a different season is not the same as seeing the tree in all seasons. The same with a blind man seeing an elephant by feel, A person with sight could see that the blind men only felt part of the elephant and made their decision and only felt part of the truth!
And your evidence for this is? In all of human history there has never been any such “proof” to rationalize away.
And I note that you are carefully avoiding answering my questions. Again; what would it take to make you believe in my god-hamster living inside the Earth? And why should I take your bronze age god any more seriously, or even as seriously as the hamster?
A bunch of believers stared at the sun too long and saw imaginary things, or just made things up. Why should I buy the unsupported word of a bunch of lunatics? Scientists at the time didn’t see anything, not even all the believers did. And we see again and again believers convincing themselves that food or salt stains or pretty much anything is a holy vision; even by the standards of eyewitness testimony there are not reliable witnesses.
Nonsense; believers make claims about such things that violate physical laws, therefore they are claimed to violate physical law. Science can’t observe them violating physical law because they don’t exist.
By listening to the people who believe in them describe them. Since such things are wholly fictional, that is how they work.
Ah, the empty pride of the believer.
The quotes to attribute to God are in reality the words of some human. That is a fact! Because some human said God said something doesn’t make it true.