:1orglaugh that's a good one.
My thoughts on God
- Thread starter milton waddams
- Start date
:1orglaugh that's a good one.
So it is better to suffer then not suffer. I guess all i can hope to do is get a few of you to admit your masochism and then hope that others will see that masochism is irrational. Not sure if i could do anything beyond that if you are so strident in your pro-masochist ideology.
dystheism would explain why the world is the way it is with so much suffering, but would also be evidence for not worshipping such a god/gods. Deism doesn't really get to the same point because if it is assumed god has a plan, and doesn't intervene, then i'd say this plan is immoral given the amount of suffering in the world. If a deist god has no ultimate plan, again it is useless in the sense of it doesn't love anyone in any meaningful sense.
If i help someone who needs help, and God could help that person and doesn't, then I am better then God.
truth.
Yes. I guess some would say no, because it was God in you heart telling you to help that person. Which is just a bunch of crap, because if God gave us free will then why would he intervene in our everyday affairs?
God does not exist anyway so there really is no need to think about it.
Isnt religion depressing? No wonder so many of the faithful are so obsessed with death. I'd want to die to.
But doesnt heaven sound like a complete drag? Worshipping some thing forever and ever just because he decided to give us life, well yeah, thanks for that. But do I really have to keep this up forever. Give me hell, now there's a place I can enjoy.
that's a good point about the free will thing you mentioned. kind of contradicts what people usually say but i agree with your train of thought on that.
I think there may be god/gods. i don't think it's fair to say it/they don't exist.
Yes, i do find religion depressing given the horrible state of the world we live in.
Well, if that's what heaven consisted of then yes it would be a drag. But if it was instead a paradise where you could do whatever you want except cause suffering, then i'd say god should have made the world that way from the start. i guess if you enjoy suffering you can enjoy hell, but something tells me, given the amount of suffering that goes on in the world already, we are already in a kind of hell.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm
A prize-winning quantum physicist says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any role of God, asks Mark Vernon.
The Templeton Prize, awarded for contributions to "affirming life's spiritual dimension", has been won by French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, who has worked on quantum physics with some of the most famous names in modern science.
Quantum physics is a hugely successful theory: the predictions it makes about the behaviour of subatomic particles are extraordinarily accurate. And yet, it raises profound puzzles about reality that remain as yet to be understood.
WHAT IS QUANTUM PHYSICS?
Originated in work conducted by Max Planck and Albert Einstein at start of 20th Century
They discovered that light comes in discrete packets, or quanta, which we call photons
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says certain features of subatomic particles like momentum and position cannot be known precisely at the same time
Gaps remain, like attempts to find the 'God Particle' that scientists hope to spot in the Large Hadron Collider. It is required to give other particles mass
The bizarre nature of quantum physics has attracted some speculations that are wacky but the theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things.
Some suggest that observers play a key part in determining the nature of things. Legendary physicist John Wheeler said the cosmos "has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it has been observed to happen."
D'Espagnat worked with Wheeler, though he himself reckons quantum theory suggests something different. For him, quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately "veiled" from us.
The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine. Along with some philosophers, he has called it "Being".
In an effort to seek the answers to the "meaning of physics", I spoke to five leading scientists.
1. THE ATHEIST
Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg is well-known as an atheist. For him, physics reflects the "chilling impersonality" of the universe.
He would be thinking here of, say, the vast tracts of empty space, billions of light years across, that mock human meaning.
He says: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless."
So for Weinberg, the notion that there might be an overlap between science and spirituality is entirely mistaken.
2. THE SCEPTIC
The Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, shows a distinct reserve when speculating about what physics might mean, whether that be pointlessness or meaningfulness.
He has "no strong opinions" on the interpretation of quantum theory: only time will tell whether the theory becomes better understood.
"The implications of cosmology for these realms of thought may be profound, but diffidence prevents me from venturing into them," he has written.
In short, it is good to be humble in the face of the mysteries that physics throws up.
3. THE PLATONIST
Cambridge physicist Roger Penrose differs again. He believes that mathematics suggests there is a world beyond the immediate, material one.
Spider in moonlight
Can science explain all of life's meaning?
Ask yourself this question: would one plus one equal two even if I didn't think it? The answer is yes.
A prize-winning quantum physicist says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any role of God, asks Mark Vernon.
The Templeton Prize, awarded for contributions to "affirming life's spiritual dimension", has been won by French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, who has worked on quantum physics with some of the most famous names in modern science.
Quantum physics is a hugely successful theory: the predictions it makes about the behaviour of subatomic particles are extraordinarily accurate. And yet, it raises profound puzzles about reality that remain as yet to be understood.
WHAT IS QUANTUM PHYSICS?
Originated in work conducted by Max Planck and Albert Einstein at start of 20th Century
They discovered that light comes in discrete packets, or quanta, which we call photons
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle says certain features of subatomic particles like momentum and position cannot be known precisely at the same time
Gaps remain, like attempts to find the 'God Particle' that scientists hope to spot in the Large Hadron Collider. It is required to give other particles mass
The bizarre nature of quantum physics has attracted some speculations that are wacky but the theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things.
Some suggest that observers play a key part in determining the nature of things. Legendary physicist John Wheeler said the cosmos "has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it has been observed to happen."
D'Espagnat worked with Wheeler, though he himself reckons quantum theory suggests something different. For him, quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately "veiled" from us.
The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine. Along with some philosophers, he has called it "Being".
In an effort to seek the answers to the "meaning of physics", I spoke to five leading scientists.
1. THE ATHEIST
Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg is well-known as an atheist. For him, physics reflects the "chilling impersonality" of the universe.
He would be thinking here of, say, the vast tracts of empty space, billions of light years across, that mock human meaning.
He says: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless."
So for Weinberg, the notion that there might be an overlap between science and spirituality is entirely mistaken.
2. THE SCEPTIC
The Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, shows a distinct reserve when speculating about what physics might mean, whether that be pointlessness or meaningfulness.
He has "no strong opinions" on the interpretation of quantum theory: only time will tell whether the theory becomes better understood.
"The implications of cosmology for these realms of thought may be profound, but diffidence prevents me from venturing into them," he has written.
In short, it is good to be humble in the face of the mysteries that physics throws up.
3. THE PLATONIST
Cambridge physicist Roger Penrose differs again. He believes that mathematics suggests there is a world beyond the immediate, material one.
Spider in moonlight
Can science explain all of life's meaning?
Ask yourself this question: would one plus one equal two even if I didn't think it? The answer is yes.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
The godhaters hate God. No matter what anyone says they will always hate God. Anyone who contradicts them will always be met with abuse, scorn and derision. It is a pointless discussion. All it gives is an opportunity for the self righteous God haters to pat themselves on the back with gratuitous statements of the same old self pity they spouted before.
It also gives them a chance to eagerly click on the neg rep button as a way of making themselves feel good, that they have now accomplished something. Then tuck their smarmy selves into bed with a 'so there' smirk.
Experience, knowledge of God is by revelation.
Once one has experienced the Eternal, no amount of sarcasm, threats, abuse or other forms of human scorn can or will change one's belief. With a few exceptions. Of course I am not going to read freeones, think "Oh, no, I'm a retard. I must stop being a retard and stop believing in God." Pffft.
Just because I saw an egg lean over to its side at 12h:00 PST on 21 March - tell it to someone - who then postulates that such a thing happening is preposterous, does not mean it didn't happen.
If you have not experienced something for yourself, then, yes, you are going to close your heart and deliberately be ignorant of the truth.
If you open your heart and mind a little bit, then maybe you will have faith as a child.
Otherwise it is just a case of "pearl before swine."
Oh, and lets not forget the eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no EFF YOU no EFF YOU!!! no, well, you know the score.
It also gives them a chance to eagerly click on the neg rep button as a way of making themselves feel good, that they have now accomplished something. Then tuck their smarmy selves into bed with a 'so there' smirk.
Experience, knowledge of God is by revelation.
Once one has experienced the Eternal, no amount of sarcasm, threats, abuse or other forms of human scorn can or will change one's belief. With a few exceptions. Of course I am not going to read freeones, think "Oh, no, I'm a retard. I must stop being a retard and stop believing in God." Pffft.
Just because I saw an egg lean over to its side at 12h:00 PST on 21 March - tell it to someone - who then postulates that such a thing happening is preposterous, does not mean it didn't happen.
If you have not experienced something for yourself, then, yes, you are going to close your heart and deliberately be ignorant of the truth.
If you open your heart and mind a little bit, then maybe you will have faith as a child.
Otherwise it is just a case of "pearl before swine."
Oh, and lets not forget the eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no eff you no EFF YOU no EFF YOU!!! no, well, you know the score.
The main problem I have with religion is
1. The lack of proof. I've asked for proof that god exists in the past & the only answer I got was that I should prove he doesn't exist. Since one cannot prove something does not exist (I ask to everyone to prove me that flying giraffes do not exist) this discussion obviously often ends in a lot of useless bickering (& that's the reason I usually no longer start it).
2. If you believe in god & if you search for god on wikipedia, you'll read that a lot of religions believe that god is not omniscient (knows everything), either he chose not to be or it is the unpredictable nature of the universe itself which causes him to be less than omniscient. If god is not omniscient, then he can make mistakes. If god can make mistakes he probably will make them.
Just because we are more powerful than a wildebeest, does it mean the wildebeest should worship us? I'd say no.
Just because god is more powerful than us, does it mean we should worship him? No. But that's all that remains after you take away his omniscience, a creature that is more powerful than us but just as prone to make mistakes.
3. If Jehova (god) exists, then who says that Brahma, Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzeqoatl, etc. don't exist either? If they exist, how can this religion be right & other religions wrong? If other gods exist, then what exactly is the truth concerning our past and creation (lots of religions are similar, but never the same when it comes to the story of creation).
-----------------
I wanted to mention free will as well, but I've decided against it, since that part of the discussion would only make sense if god were omniscient.
1. The lack of proof. I've asked for proof that god exists in the past & the only answer I got was that I should prove he doesn't exist. Since one cannot prove something does not exist (I ask to everyone to prove me that flying giraffes do not exist) this discussion obviously often ends in a lot of useless bickering (& that's the reason I usually no longer start it).
2. If you believe in god & if you search for god on wikipedia, you'll read that a lot of religions believe that god is not omniscient (knows everything), either he chose not to be or it is the unpredictable nature of the universe itself which causes him to be less than omniscient. If god is not omniscient, then he can make mistakes. If god can make mistakes he probably will make them.
Just because we are more powerful than a wildebeest, does it mean the wildebeest should worship us? I'd say no.
Just because god is more powerful than us, does it mean we should worship him? No. But that's all that remains after you take away his omniscience, a creature that is more powerful than us but just as prone to make mistakes.
3. If Jehova (god) exists, then who says that Brahma, Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzeqoatl, etc. don't exist either? If they exist, how can this religion be right & other religions wrong? If other gods exist, then what exactly is the truth concerning our past and creation (lots of religions are similar, but never the same when it comes to the story of creation).
-----------------
I wanted to mention free will as well, but I've decided against it, since that part of the discussion would only make sense if god were omniscient.
why did god make mosquitos and michael bolton?
You say this like people who believe in God don't act that way. It is a two way street buddy.
Latterer
Closed Account
Don't think that's a good argument against god. First, it assumes an omnipotent god, who i agree would be immoral if suffering had no redeeming purpose. Second, the argument against suffering claims no good results from it. If I study some difficult subject, the longer I study it the greater my financial reward will be from employers- hence the reason doctors are paid more than engineers and engineers generally make more than high school teachers. Hence suffering(granted,self-imposed) has a reward which I deem valuable. The same argument could be applied to goodness. It may be that moral goodness can only be understood by some people after some degree of suffering. As it takes some individuals more effort(hence more suffering) to master math or anatomy than others, so individuals might vary in their capacity to learn goodness.
I think a more solid argument against god is looking at what he hates and at what his supposed followers hate. Is there true goodness in that hatred?
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Just what we need commentary from Milton on God. 
It's called freewill. God isn't going to intervene just to stop every little thing.
Most of the things God is blamed for is caused by the actions of people.
People do evil things. For example, start wars, strip-searches in schools and so on.
Why would God help someone out that doesn't believe in or care about him?
People do evil things and they can blame themselves.
It's called freewill. God isn't going to intervene just to stop every little thing.
Most of the things God is blamed for is caused by the actions of people.
People do evil things. For example, start wars, strip-searches in schools and so on.
Why would God help someone out that doesn't believe in or care about him?
People do evil things and they can blame themselves.
without the question, there is no answer.
If there is a God, it is immoral whether or not there is "redeemng purpose." When you start from the principle that suffering is worse then not suffering, God is proven for a fact to be immoral.
Your talk about studying subjects and acquiring certain careers and levels of income doesn't really have to do with what i'm talking about, which is the horrendous suffering that exists, has existed for a long time, and will presumably continue to exist for a long time. Plus your explanation is just typical neo-classical economics which is a lackey for capitalism with no larger truth, however, that is a different topic. Just because you see some sense of value in acquiring knowledge in certain fields of study doesn't say anything about the larger problem with this field of study. For example, becoming a doctor. Why do people become doctors? Well, partly to make money but partly to help people who are sick or dying from things that prove god is immoral. You're conveniently defining things the way you want and leaving out the serious implications of everything i've said in this thread about suffering.
Same goes for "learning goodness." If god is so great, it would create a world without suffering and still allow us to have free will in certain things and maybe even some kind of understanding of morality. Why is understanding morality better then not suffering? What if god programmed us to never hurt anyone, and what if he took away all suffering that comes from nature, but still allowed us an enormous amount of free will in other things? I've kind of said this already, but you are steadfast in your irrational belief that it is better to suffer then not suffer. This is what apologists for God ultimately have to do to reconcile the horrible state of the universe with a supposedly "good" God. You are clutching at the sand and watching it seave through your fingers because ultimiately your premises and conclusions are founded on valuing suffering.
Is there true goodness in hating homosexuals? No. Pick any of many other numerous examples of immoral behavior condoned by the bible or biblical followers and you have a strong case for religion in general being based on extreme intolerance and immorality. This should be nothing surprising for anyone who has an independent thinking mind and an emotional intolerance for suffering.
Just what we need commentary from Milton on God.
It's called freewill. God isn't going to intervene just to stop every little thing.
Most of the things God is blamed for is caused by the actions of people.
People do evil things. For example, start wars, strip-searches in schools and so on.
Why would God help someone out that doesn't believe in or care about him?
People do evil things and they can blame themselves.
"...every little thing." Yeah. Sure. Like all the things i've mentioned in this thread, like starving children, Aids, hurricanes, etc. are "little" things. What would classify as big then? An asteroid destroying millions of species? But i guess you would blindly have faith that god would stop that from happening, right? Too bad the dinosaurs weren't christians.
You are a dunce. God doesn't help anyone in any observable way, so your bantering about god helping people who don't believe in him is pointless. I've already addressed this but obviously your reading comprehension skills are quite limited, or you just have a mental block which prevents you from accurately interpreting reality. Maybe not quite "mental illness," but i believe religious people are fucked up in the head in some way. Some think religion is dictated by genes. Maybe so. But then we'd have an explanation for why many religious dunces have such a hard time accurately interpreting reality, just like a schizophrenic.
Your libertarian ideology has infected your mind and prevents you from understanding anything at a deeper ethical or emotional level, hence your reliance on bullshit statements like people "can blame themselves." Maybe it makes you more comfortable to just have cute little ideological slogans to fall back on when you are challenged? Typical....
I think people say that all the time. "God chose not to bless me with...." Religious people just choose not to use it in a bitter way.
Also, I'm assuming that if the people on this thread can afford to spend their time chatting online, then they aren't starving or dying of terminal cancer or anything like that.
Shouldn't you then be at least a little appreciative of what God gave you? Or, if you dont't believe in God, at least appreciate what you have. You can all read and write, about 30% of the population can't do that. You're all on a pornsite, so you most likely weren't born as unics, that something to appreciate too lol.
You're not really saying anything of importance. So I'm glad i'm not starving instead of starving. This does nothing to address what has been said in this thread.
Similar threads
