God

<p>I'm surprised this hasn't been moved to the cafe.</p>

<p>First, before you say whether you believe in god or not, you have to make clear what you mean by "god". </p>

<p>To those who feel so confident about their not being a god, think about this quote by Sir Francis Bacon: "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."</p>

<p>And remember that the God the Atheist rejects is much different than the god the Philosopher accepts.</p>

<p>In other words you guys should stop thinking about God in anthropomorphic terms.</p>

<p>If we're talking about the Christian God, and we were supposedly created in his image, wouldn't that make him an anthropomorphic God?</p>

<p>If not, what exactly would being "created in his image" entail?</p>

<p>I understand that not all gods are the Christian God, but as He's the one I have the most experience with, he's the one I'm more comfortable debating over.</p>

<p>Rather, I haven't studied the god of the philosopher, although I would like to. :)</p>

<p>Any god you want ot mention is the god i reject. Except the FSM, of course. and philosophy doens't turn me away from god. Science turns me away from god. i've never studied philosophy. what's the cafe?</p>

<p>to art (for short, sorry): we CAN understand His awesome power. i don't mean to sound rude: what makes you think we cannot? Also, the Bible offers a little piece of info that human beings were WAY more intelligent than they are now after the flood. </p>

<p>on blood sacrifice: sacrifice is dumb; it is merely symbolism. HOWEVER, because it is merely symbolism, there are a lot of truths to be extracted, and therefore, serves to educate those of the OT. The old testament is a shadow, and the new testament is the real thing (can't remember exact wording of the Bible, sorry); what the shadow does is help us see the real thing in more depth. Finally, for the OT generations to carry out something so symbolic, ie. dumb with such scrutiny requires faith. So both the OT and NT generations need faith - the essence is the same either way. </p>

<p>Jesus's times: if we went deeper into Jewish history, I bet we will find more satisfying answers. but here's a quick one: the Roman empire is probably one of the greatest empires of all times. For Jesus to be born in that time meant that the gospel could easily spread to europe, africa, and asia. And it's quite fascinating how we all agree that where Jesus was born is around "the middle". </p>

<p>Cain: firstly, the Bible did say that Abel selected the best of his flock. The Bible didn't say anything for Cain. Secondly, there's an interesting hypothesis. As you may know, people weren't supposed to eat meat before the flood. So what was Abel doing raising animals? The answer could very well be that Abel was already taking on the career of a priest, ie. he did not raise animals for food but rather for sacrifice. </p>

<p>isn't it fun to discover the complexities of the Bible through questioning?</p>

<p>oh yes, to ikwame: it's okay~! everyone has to go through this debate/bashing (whatever to the FSM). what you have to do is deal with it, and the way to deal with it is to learn as MUCH as POSSIBLE and get in the debate! if the opponent is rational, then you could save a soul (or at least shut a mouth); if the opponent is irrational, then feel sorry for them and move on with your life. There are no losses either way, and to tell the truth, this kind of debate motivates me to read more, learn more, and it makes daily devotion a blast (well sometimes).</p>

<p>Don't worry about the name, I actually prefer Art. I just don't get picky about it. :)</p>

<p>First of all, thank you for the amazing response- finally something interesting going on in the thread. :D</p>

<p>I'm throughly satisfied with your answer (although I'll admit I made the "irrationality" up on the spot), but I do have a few comments. I'd never heard the idea that we were much more intelligent before the flood -- in fact, considering the flood an actual event has always been something that I've been taught against. As far as most of my religion teachers have told me, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are meant to reveal spiritual truths, not historical ones. If this is true, then exactly when were we more intelligent, and why the change?</p>

<p>Furthermore, if we were more intelligent and more able to understand God's wishes, why the spiral into a world without any morals? Wouldn't the world be a better place, or is the Bible implying that we should remain somewhat ignorant?</p>

<p>But if you're willing, I'd love to keep going at this. One of my main issues with Christians in general is their idea of hell. Not only the classic argument, why does God punish the creation he loves, but why do we need a concept of hell in the first place? All it really serves to do is act as a method to instill fear in people. If we're serving God out of true fear (not fear/respect), then is that true service?</p>

<p>What is the difference between someone who follows Jesus's moral laws for the sake of not going to hell and someone who follows the same moral laws because they believe those laws are right? If their own, personally developped moral system (even differing slightly in some of the minor points of the Old Testament, if we care to compare to fundamentalists), keeps the person from doing wrong, but they don't believe in a God, are they doomed to hell?</p>

<p>I tend to view belief in a saviour as a psychological crutch, kind of the way the Catholic Church describes Confession as a sacrament. It's not that God needs us to confess, it's that we need the sort of closure that comes from the confession to keep us mentally healthy. But if you don't need that closure, then why confess? If we don't need the comfort of a personal savior who loves us, then why the necessary belief?</p>

<p>wow..this thread is becoming more of a christian thing (which is ok) but I'm lost...</p>

<p>DMrenel by Philosophy he meant logical,skeptical thinking in general, as opposed to dogmatic thinking. You say you reject any "god"? What if by God I mean an objective morality? Do you not believe in a objective morality? Does science tell you anything about morality? What if by god I mean an objective truth in general? You can't simply say you reject any "god" without knowing what your rejecting. That just shows that you have made up your mind before you have even gave the subject thought and reached a conclusion through logical argument. In other words- you dumb.</p>

<p>Art, when considering religion why not entertain the idea that many of its teachings are allegories? In my opinion, hell and punishment received from god is just the probable or likely consequence of certain actions in our world. For example, being promiscuous and drinking lots of alcohol is generally considered a sin in a lot of religions. If you were to adopt such a life, how do you think your environment would turn out? Chances are, you'd prob get an STD, and if you were irresponsible enough, you might get AIDS, then top that with the consequences of drinking alcohol. What has resulted, in my opinion, from committing the sin of excessive drinking and promiscuity is a world that can be equated to "hell" on earth (for the individual who now has AIDS and a drinking problem). I personally believe that religion is a powerful way to shape the world and minds of men, not necessarily for the bad, but in an attempt to make the world a better place on earth. Maybe its personally not for me, but in the past, when the average IQ of an individual was much different, and literacy was a luxury of only the elite, organized religion was very effective in getting stubborn people (like many people on this board) to do what will actually make their lives better in the long run.</p>

<p>i'm so glad i could help!! first of all, i want to say that I probably know why you have become an agnostic now: your religious teachers are definitely finding an easy way out on what they should know. so I hope you can throw away all your perspectives in the past and rediscover Christianity for what it really is!</p>

<p>on the flood: there are quite a few indirect evidences, and a working theory of how it actually happened. here's one thing to think about: how are fossils formed? scientists suggest dead animals fall into water and then get covered by dust slowly, but most dead things float in water. the huge amount of fossils suggests a huge and rather speedy change in the face of the planet. </p>

<p>on intelligence: the hypothesis is that the environment has a direct influence on our growth (so dinosaurs aren't really special, they are just giant lizards. in fact, there are fossils of a giant rhino and shells of other kinds). So given that people nowadays do NOT use a large percentage of their brain, live in a much more hazardous environment (not abundant in bacteria but in carcinogens), and thus live way shorter, we can assume that the the full potential of the brain (and body) was only utilized before the flood. Plus, Adam had to name all the animals and govern the world - quite a task if you think about all those extinct species we have. Finally, there are lots of amazing things in the remains of ancient civilizations that we are only starting to recognize, like alignment of pyramids to the stars, etc. So after the flood, there was a huge degradation in the environment, and as you can see, the ages of men recorded in the bible started to drop very fast. </p>

<p>on intelligence and morals: knowledge work both ways. because they were really intelligent, they also found more ways to rebel, like creating the tower of Babel (which some atheists actually suggest that it was a rocket-luching thing), and create all these mythic religions. In fact, there are verses that suggest the forbidden fruit is to be given to Adam and Eve after they've matured during their stay on earth (as we are to become judges in the future). But prematurely eating the fruit made them judge without the good will they ought to have, with a perverted perspective (like prejudice you can say). </p>

<p>on hell and salvation: I think heaven is just the Kingdom of God, and if you choose not to go in (free ticket~), then obviously God isn't going to force you. and it's horrible to be away from God (the world is quite horrible now, but with the Spirit in every believer it's still not as bad as armageddon, which STILL has some believers; now if God is to totally withdraw, then we can imagine the place to be quite hellish). Forget about the perspective that God is going to use demons to torture us: demons (and maybe a few Satanist in the end times) will be the ones tortured; others are just "away from God's presence". </p>

<p>If the Bible never taught about hell, then it would be a hellish book not to teach people on what it's really like to be away from God. It is mercy. </p>

<p>I'd like to add that we all know that the fear of hell doesn't realy make one do good; it just doesn't work well. It is when one is submerged in His love that one no longer need to do things that hurt oneself, others, and God. And His love is shown in CLEARLY illustrating the consequences and dying for us (sounds cliche, but if you think about it it's hard to do something like that if you don't love that something so much.) so hell is just that, not something God created just to torture people, and in that perspective, teaching on hell is really essential~</p>

<p>God, in a nutshell, is an invisible thingy that can do anything. Every religion with a god, or gods, fits this. Sure, animists break it up into chunks, but you get the point. Anyoen that says God is "objective truth" is just trying to be difficult. Any religion I've ever heard of fits the invisiible thingy definition at least loosly. Oh, and the ad hominem really helped your argument, props for that.</p>

<p>Philosophy isn't logical thinking in the same way as science- it's abstract thinking. Science sees a full jar, a half full jar, and an empty jar. It concludes that the jars gradually get fuller/emptier. Philosophy fills up my hard drive with allegories, etc.</p>

<p>Speaking of, if you want to play the allegory game, this discussion is pointless. If hell can be an allegory for VD's, why can't Jesus, or whatever invisible friend any given religion bows to, just be an allegory for the overall good of society? Allegories are only useful for making religion fit science and weaken the stance that any part of it is litterally true. And what about the whole two genesis's thing? </p>

<p>Fossils- your wrong on all counts. Bones are denser than water, and therefor float once the flesh has been consumed. Also, most fossils, feel free to wiki it, are formed when covered in sediment, frozen, or left in an anerobic enviroment. All of these allow it to not decay as quickly. If left just in water, the decay will be faster...</p>

<p>The whole 10% of your brain thing is a myth. Please google it. Not 100% of the brain is used at any one time...but that's also true of muscles. You can't possilby flex and relax your arm at once. You see my "allegory" don't you? Tehe.</p>

<p>And as far as being submurged in his love or fear of hell making you be this concept you're calling "good": no...I'm sorry. God is the father, right? So let's use mine as an example. When he tells me to clean my room, I don't do it because I love nothing better in the world than to see him happy and for him to feel respected. I do it because he can take away the internet. THAT'S He||.</p>

<p>THERE IS A GOD!!!! I GOT 5s ON ALL MY APs!!!! THIS THREAD NEED EXIST NO LONGER!!!</p>

<p>DM:</p>

<p>on fossils: you're just repeating what I said, sorry.
brain thing: i found the article you are talking about, and it really doesn't have any scientific evidence either. firstly, we're not talking about size, and when the author compares 10% of a human brain to a sheep's brain he loses ALL credibility. So instead of using "neuro for kids" to defend yourself, i suggest doing more research. Secondly, i've read somewhere that scientists are learning to recover some functions that the human body once had, and in Times magazine (a very secular magazine btw), they predicted that in the next century scientists will be able to enhance our sight to see colors unimaginable.</p>

<p>one small thing: when you said flex and relax all your muscles, you're being quite irrational because flexing is using, relaxing is not. so just because you can't "use" and "not use" at the same time doesn't mean you can't "use every one" at the same time. </p>

<p>"two genesis's": is this second genesis you're talking about, on how the world was created again? if you'd pay attention, you'd see that it's talking about Eden. </p>

<p>on hell: if you'd pay attention, my point was that hell is a direct consequence that God simply warned us of. Taking away the internet requires your father's effort and therefore is NOT a direct consequence. In this case, "living in a messy room" is the direct consequence, not "no internet". So I don't see where any of your allegories overlap what I just said nor the point you are trying to make.</p>

<p>Sorry about the long wait, had a week of stuff and not enough time to type this out. :)</p>

<p>But yes! Here we have the opportunity for clash.</p>

<p>Alright, on the veracity of the flood. I've never heard a "working" theory of the flood. If anything, the closest thing I've heard defended is the idea of regional floods having affected the tribes of the area and the flood myth being pulled from that. </p>

<p>You make a point about fossils, suggesting that it's extremely hard for them to be formed, and that there are too many in the world today to have been formed through normal means. Well, first of all, how many is "too many"? Trillions of animals have walked the earth, and if anything, what we have is a lack of fossils. I agree with you, things getting "eventually" covered by sand and other things, then hardened wouldn't make sense; they would decompose in the water too quickly. However, that isn't the accepted theory on fossils. Most scientists believe that fossils are formed after being quickly covered by that sediment, and then hardened. That's why there are many fossils around areas where the earth is constantly shifting, or near volcanos. Fossil formation still stands without the story of the flood.</p>

<p>Then on intelligence. You suggest that humans were more intelligent before the flood because of the environmental effect the flood had on the world. First of all, what kind of environmental effect would cause a decrease in intelligence? You cite the example of us living shorter now because we live in a carcinogenic environment, but the life expectancy has in fact increased since the original introduction of smoking, for example, because of the increases in technology. And how would the flood have produced more carcinogens? Or was the extra water killing people off?</p>

<p>Then you claim that we used our brains completely before the flood, but we don't anymore. First of all, there is no reason to assign the switch to the flood, and second, the idea that we don't use our brains to their full potentials is wrong. What you're probably misunderstanding is the idea that we don't use ALL of our brains ALL of the time. This is what DM was trying to point out. We can't use our brains to do everything all at once, just like we can't use our arm muscles to both contract and relax our muscles at the same time.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-myth&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12&lt;/a> etc.</p>

<p>As for ancient civilizations aligning their pyramids with the stars, that isn't a sign of extreme intelligence, it's a sign of... normal intelligence. Besides, suggesting that these ancient civilizations lived before also suggests that they were destroyed by the flood, and unless you believe the stories of Atlantis, I'm hard pressed to think of any "technological" ancient civilizations that were destroyed by a flood.</p>

<p>As for Adam naming all the animals... well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure what evidence to provide to counter this, but I don't believe that Adam actually named all the animals. What language did he name them in? Linguistically speaking, this language wouldn't have survived down to our time, so what was the point? And where was it claimed that he would rule the world?</p>

<p>For the morality, we've run into a contradiction. The original point on intelligence was asking why God made us unable to understand his ways completely. You replied that he had, but we lost that ability after the flood. But if we were so intelligent before the flood, and were able to understand God's ways, then why did we rebel the way you said we would? You're claiming (if not on purpose) that the stupider we are, the more likely we are to follow God; I just can't accept that.</p>

<p>And I'd like to see the verses that suggest that particular use of the forbidden fruit; I've never been told of that theory.</p>

<p>If you're claiming that hell is simply a world without God, then I'm also hard pressed to try to imagine why that would be a bad thing. As far as the world is now, there are plenty of "good" people who don't believe in a deity, and there are plenty of "bad" people who do. In fact, I believe that if we took a good deal of those "bad" people and simply made them disappear, the world would be a better place. The Bible was used to defend slavery and racism, and is used to defend homophobia. There are countries that are relatively atheist that are doing perfectly fine.</p>

<p>That particular view on hell can be pretty dangerous, as it comes down to a debate on inherent human morality. Is it possible for us to be good without the "influence" of a deity, or are we inherently evil? If we can engineer ourselves to be inherently good, or we can establish a society that can regulate itself, then what would be so bad about hell?</p>

<p>And even so, when is too late to accept God's offer? If we come to what you consider the end times to be, and we realize that we were wrong after it all, would God accept us back in? And if so, then what kind of incentive is that for us to believe in him now? Wouldn't the most beneficial thing for us to do be to follow our own will now, and then recant later? Or will God finally reject us? And what does that say about his love? Doesn't seem so neverending then, does it?</p>

<p>the existence of god will always lie beyond what can be proven, but science will eventually explain the universe in terms of natural law.</p>

<p>Some of you equate philosophy with allegories. That's just not correct at all. Philosophy starts off with a state of universal doubt, then using logical principals it seeks to establish certain things as true. It proceeds very much like a math problem, only much more difficult. Or other times, it seeks to take arguments offered by others (science, psychology, religion especially) and break them down and show them logically invalid. It builds things up by establishing axioms that cannot be doubted, then uses logical proofs to build up more propositions. It synthesizes. Or it uses logic to deconstruct systems created by culture; it analyzes. It is a game very similar to proving things in geometry, only philosophy is much more difficult and is more abstract. But it is NOT based on allegories. It is based on logic; proof by alegory is the same as proof by analogy, which has no place in proper philosophy.</p>

<p>Now this language game of philosophy can't prove the existence of God (or God's non-existence). Any attempt to prove His existence by reason leads to unresolveable paradoxes. See Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for examples and demonstrations. Also, God's existence (or non-existence) can't be inferred from just looking the universe (what Intelligent Design proposes to do). See David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion for one of the most definitive refutations of Intelligent Design-like arguments ever postulated. So we can't prove whether God exists or not</p>

<p>We can't prove why the universe exists or how it came into existence; our knowledge is limited to what exists in it (eg. science, the observation and analysis of the interactions of what is in the universe). Baruch Spinoza and Ludwig Wittgenstein articulated this very well. </p>

<p>But our belief is limitless. There is no objective answer to whether God exists or not, there is no "true" religion; but individuals can non-the-less believe whatever they want to when it comes to God. All the great religions are FAITHS not objective fact. Faith in God is beautiful, but positing faith as objective fact only leads to harm.</p>

<p>working theory of flood: taking the Bible literally, there was a layer of water vapor around the earth above the atmosphere; this creates a ‘greenhouse’ effect which contributes to the enormous size of the animals. Taking the Bible literally once again, the springs of the great deep burst forth, suggested drastic seismic changes that would contribute to volcanic eruptions and massive landslides (for huge amount of fossils). This would cause a great flood on its own, but like all eruptions it could cause water vapor to condensate, therefore opening up the floodgates of heaven (and this is probably why the Bible records this in this order). Accompanying eruptions would be clouds of volcanic matter (like SiO2), which would condensate more water vapor, and block the sun. Could this be where the cause of what we think of as the ice ages? Plus, it is possible to have flood stories from many cultures, but none of those are merely flood stories: their details reveal more than that. Taking the Chinese one for example, the heroine was named nu-wo (noah?) and she mended the skies with multi-colored stones (reminiscent of the rainbow). It is weird to have these details which don’t really contribute to the story stay for thousands of years. </p>

<p>on fossils: I know we can never tell how much is too much, but here’s something to think about: the amount of fossils found NOT really near to any volcanoes can only be justified if the earth had huge changes, correct? (Either to shift all those fossils to one place or shift an entire volcano). </p>

<p>on intelligence: what I am suggesting is de-evolution. I agree with modern science that the environment can cause drastic changes (the only thing I don’t agree with is that one can change to a different animal). So I am shocked by your question: don’t al environmental changes influence the growth of the human body, and therefore growth of the brain? on carcinogens: that’s probably way after the flood , it was used to illustrate how much of an effect can a change in the environment have on us. </p>

<p>on the brain: again, the sites use “lack of evidence” to reject this idea, and mainly they are using it to reject the idea of being able to recover it through some product (which I think it ridiculous too, it’s almost like curing cancer since it’s sort of like getting rid of a mutation). I don’t get the relax/flex thing: it’s totally irrelevant. </p>

<p>on ancient intelligence and Adam these are simply indirect evidences (just like Bible verses). Ancient civilizations were after the flood; there are tons of things that we still cannot know fully about them (the simplest one being the crafting of the Stonehenge.) The weird thing is the intelligence spike. And sorry, it’s Adam ruling Eden, not really the world. </p>

<p>morality: I NEVER suggested that the stupider we are the more likely we are to follow Him. All I said was that intelligence and morality have absolutely NO connection at all, and I think that it is quite evident even without any of my examples. I guess it’s just you: you are probably an extremely good person who would never rebel against God if you understood Him as good and righteous. But seriously not everyone is like that. To rebel or not is a choice, not a result of understanding. </p>

<p>forbidden fruit: here are some questions first. Why would God create something that was only used to test us? Isn’t the ability to tell from good and evil good? What’s wrong with being like God? Also, we are to judge with the Lord: wouldn’t the ability to tell from good and evil be essential? the only plausible answer is that God is waiting for the right time, for us to mature on earth first (through ruling Eden) and then we get the fruit. but that’s the original plan, now that we cheated things are a lot different. </p>

<p>on hell: “without God” is not “a world of atheists”. It is a world without His sustenance.
Also, we can not tell who is going to hell and who is not. In the gospels it talks about people who can even perform miracles in God’s name being rejected in the end, so we don’t know when is the last time to repent and stuff SINCE it is God who decides. And I don’t think the Bible ever used “you’ll go to hell” to threaten people; it is lame Christians who do that. SO why believe now? You will be happier during these years and you will have more chances to be of service and make your life worthy. You will have fewer regrets. </p>

<p>finally, at this point we have to make sure that what we are talking about now is directly relevant to our topic of choice. So do you have any other questions?</p>

<p>neuroscience gears up for its battle against religion</p>