<p>give it time...probably 10 more generations from now, our view of "god" will be vastly different. just as we do not worship zeus or osiris so will future generations not worship today's "gods".</p>
<p>Dru2k: The Greek and Roman Civilization both survived for less than 1,000 years. Seeing that Judaism has survived longer (4,000 years), along with Christianity (2,000 years), and Islam (1,500 years), it's difficult to say whether your theory will be correct or not. Clearly the God that we know of today has been recognized by humans for the longest period of time.</p>
<p>of course it will survive...i don't see the world going into any kind of fall or turmoil as the romans did but it will definately not have the strong hold over people's lives as it does now. rationalism and free-thought is growing, as science continues to explain our existence in the universe and disprove thousand year old books.</p>
<p>i see it first hand btw, i attend a very religious private school and was the only atheist attending until i came and converted people in debate. many of the students have gone away from the religious traditions and through free-thought eliminated the irrational religious traditions from their lifestyles. each generation becomes less and less zealous. short of jesus coming down to earth, i don't think religion will ever be as strong as it is now.</p>
<p>I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer gods than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.</p>
<p>Dru2k: In that aspect, I have to agree with you. Religion, in general, is beginning to disappear from daily life (especially among those in our own generation).</p>
<p>Yeah, religion is dying out, "As of 2004, the distribution for major religions in the United States was as follows: Protestant (54 percent), Roman Catholic (25 percent), "none" (10 percent)" (wikipedia.org)</p>
<p>"coolman25: Science and religion are two separate subjects. Regardless of whether people in the past considered natural disasters or other scientific phenomena to be the occurences of God, billions of people living in the world in modern times believe in God."</p>
<p>Yes, people in the modern times believe in God, but as I'm saying, people can be wrong. So what people believe about religion now could be wrong too.</p>
<p>If those religious texts aren't meant to be taken literally, then maybe the god part isn't literal. Maybe the whole book is nothing but a Lord of the Rings type story.</p>
<p>I've read some of the Bible and I can honestly say I can't see how you can derive a peaceful religion when half the time god is telling people to "kill in my name" and they're talking about rape, sacrifice, etc. Oh yes, then you add on a new book to justify what's done in the old book. That's like Bush murdering someone then passing a law saying it's okay for Presidents to murder.</p>
<p>Would you study for a test with a textbook that's riddled with errors? </p>
<p>Then why would you spend your life following a book that is?</p>
<p>The bible isn't nessicarily erroneous. </p>
<p>what people dont understnad it that there is no right religion. every religion has something different to offer. </p>
<p>religion is dying out. if you want to ask why, look to science and all the bad crap that happens to us. Science explains away much of the mysticism that religion hold, but not all of it. Take the big bang theory for example. As someone pointed out earlier somewhere here, science says the universe was created when a infinitely small ball of everything exploded, hence the big bang. Religion says otherwise. </p>
<p>Here is the question, who or what created the beginings of our universe? it had to come from somewhere right. </p>
<p>it comes down to one point. Faith. </p>
<p>Either you believe or you dont. Nothing can really change it, so dont argue about who is right. If you believe in a God(s) then you you believe in them. If you dont you dont. This isn't the spanish inquisition. This discussion board is about colleges, not god.</p>
<p>coolman25: As I stated before, religious texts and religions themselves aren't perfect because they were created by humans. Perhaps you should visit a 3rd World country and see the poor there. Most likely you will see that although they have no material possessions and suffer daily, they are stronger than you in several aspects of living because of their faith. When there's so much power that comes from faith for those individuals, you will see that God exists.</p>
<p>where does the Bible say murder??? your dumb</p>
<p>"coolman25: As I stated before, religious texts and religions themselves aren't perfect because they were created by humans. Perhaps you should visit a 3rd World country and see the poor there. Most likely you will see that although they have no material possessions and suffer daily, they are stronger than you in several aspects of living because of their faith. When there's so much power that comes from faith for those individuals, you will see that God exists."</p>
<p>That doesn't mean God exists. That means people will believe all sorts of BS if it makes them feel better. I compare religion to p<em>nis enlargement drugs, yes every guy wants it to be true, but it just isn't.
As for whoever said it is about belief and whether you have it is just an absolute that can't change. On a personal level I can say that isn't true. I *was</em> a very faithful Muslim, (I was born raised for a while in Iran, so that isn''t shocking) but I eventually saw through the lies and illgocial drivle that they tried to force on me. Anyone can overcome their faith, you just need the strength to overcome the tendency to conform.</p>
<p>Hey, I like this discussion, even though it is kinnda out of place. Hey Claridge, thanks for Posting, The Kalam Cosmological Argument. I printed it out and read it two or three times. And no Sohrab, I disagree I dont think it is a bunch of BS. I agree it is not a proof, but it is a reasonable argument. Like Claridge stated, years of thinking went into these arguments. And it is totally unfair for you to say that it is a bunch of BS. </p>
<p>You stated: That does not prove the existence of God, in fact, saying that everything needs a cause implies that even God would have a cause, and what type of a God is created by anything, but oh I forgot God isn't bound by that logic is he? How convenient. Furthermore, requiring that everything needs a cause would lead one to believe that is it possible that there is NO beginning since whatever caused the beginning would have to have a cause by itself.</p>
<p>First of all, from the religion I come from god is defined as infinite. And I am very sure that all or most religions define god as infinite. (And people please people stop relying solely on Christianity as a source when you try to prove or disprove god.) There are other religions in the world. In many religions, God is infinite because god was never born and god will never die. Taking this definition of god into account, Kalam s Cosmological Argument, does raise some interesting questions. When you read the argument, you have to take into account that god is defined as infinite in the argument. I
look at it almost like an equation, if x=2, then x+2=4, but that is only for the value of x=2. Therefore similarly, Kalams Argument takes into account the definition of god as defined by most religions, which is that god is infinite. The idea of god comes from relgion, and therfore the arument is not just being convenient when it implies that god is infinite. It is just simply taking god as religions know god and trying to say that from a religions point of view, the idea of god can not be dismissed.</p>
<p>Take a line from this argument and tell me which one is not true, and give me an example on how it is not true, before you even begin to say that is a BUNCH OF BS, and then we will go from there:)</p>
<p>The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2.12) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.13) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(2.2) Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition:
(2.21) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
(2.22) The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(2.23) Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.</p>
<p>"Anyone can overcome their faith"</p>
<p>Anyone can overcome love, also. Anyone can miss the forest for staring at trees. A father can reject his son and a mother her daughter. Everyone expects things to be simple, and when they are not they often give up on the subtlety of the predicament that confronts them. Resentment is a great motivator, although it often motivates people away from love and hope and towards anger and cynicism.</p>
<p>I'm also Iranian...I'm a Sufi and I don't feel your resentment, nothing is so simple or so cut and dried. Love and faith are not so easily found, or rejected.</p>
<p>Eideh Shoma Mobarak!</p>
<p>For the record I did give reasons and THEN I called it BS. I didn't just insult it without a basis. Kalam's is the best argumant for the existence of God, I will give you that, but it is not a proof, and it IS contradictory.</p>
<p>It is BS to make assumptions like </p>
<p>"God is infinite" </p>
<p>(BTW Kalam's only defines God as a cause that is not constrained by time [which doesn't make sense] it does not talk about a sentient, caring, or even an omnicient God, which is the way most religions define God.</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>"(1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence."<br>
Quantum Mechanics might say otherwise. Particles come in and out of existence without a cause. I don't know this to be true, since I don't know anything about QM, but it is a worth a look at. It doesn't make sense to me either but I have been told that is is possible.</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>"(2) The universe began to exist."
If God is not constrained by time (ie he doesn't have a cause) then how can he at one point decide to make the universe? </p>
<p>"(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist."</p>
<p>How do you prove and actual infinite can't exist? It can certainly exist mathmatically, and it might very well exist in nature. Put two mirrors in front of each other, that is kind of what it might be like. </p>
<p>So you say an actual infinite CAN'T exist, but that God CAN be an actual infinite. Why does that make sense? And why can't the cause of existence have a cause itself? Oh thats right "An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite" and therefore it can't exist.</p>
<p>salam, Eideh to mobarak</p>
<p>Nice to see another Iranian. </p>
<p>Too bad you don't share in my skepticism.</p>
<p>Sohrab: You don't have the right to bring up Quantum Physics, when you have no idea what Quantum Physics actually is. If you ask anyone who has majored in physics, they will tell you that Quantum Physics still doen't make sense to the majority of students. I suggest you don't come off as being arrogant, believing that you understand math and science more than an college-educated adult is or those individuals who spent decades deriving these proofs.</p>
<p>It's possible that you will never believe in God, or perhaps you may come to believe in God later on in life. Even if there will never be physical proof of God's existence, many who believe in God will tell you that they can feel His presence. Maybe you haven't felt His power yet, but someday you might. I'm not trying to attack you because I lost faith in God myself. However, I could tell that when I prayed for a little while, I could see that my prayer was answered within a few hours. There have been over a dozen instances when I could have been killed and wouldn't be typing this message, but in each instance, I could feel the presence of a greater being. I don't know if this was an angel or if it was God's power, but I can guarantee you that in my life experience, Someone greater than us exists.</p>
<p>"Sohrab: You don't have the right to bring up Quantum Physics, when you have no idea what Quantum Physics actually is. If you ask anyone who has majored in physics, they will tell you that Quantum Physics still doen't make sense to the majority of students. I suggest you don't come off as being arrogant, believing that you understand math and science more than an college-educated adult is or those individuals who spent decades deriving these proofs.</p>
<p>It's possible that you will never believe in God, or perhaps you may come to believe in God later on in life. Even if there will never be physical proof of God's existence, many who believe in God will tell you that they can feel His presence. Maybe you haven't felt His power yet, but someday you might. I'm not trying to attack you because I lost faith in God myself. However, I could tell that when I prayed for a little while, I could see that my prayer was answered within a few hours. There have been over a dozen instances when I could have been killed and wouldn't be typing this message, but in each instance, I could feel the presence of a greater being. I don't know if this was an angel or if it was God's power, but I can guarantee you that in my life experience, Someone greater than us exists."</p>
<p>First paragraph is a strawman, I already said to take that with a grain of salt, I even qualified it witht eh word <em>might</em></p>
<p>Second paragraph, I am glad you think God answered your prayers. That probably makes you feel good. It is a coincidence, just because something good happened to you after you prayed doesn't mean God cares. Just because God doesn't respond to the million (or billions) doesn't mean he hates those people. You aren't loved they aren't hated. It is a coincidence there are natural, logical reasons for all of these miracles/disasters.</p>
<p>Sohrab,</p>
<p>My brother's name is Tristan Sohrab.....
He's 6 years old and adorable.</p>
<p>Sohrab: You're indirectly acknowledging God's existence in your last post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because God doesn't respond to the million (or billions) doesn't mean he hates those people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or am I wrong in saying this?</p>
<p>Sorab,
You have stated: It is BS to make assumptions like </p>
<p>"God is infinite" </p>
<p>(BTW Kalam's only defines God as a cause that is not constrained by time[which doesn't make sense] it does not talk about a sentient, caring, or even an omnicient God, which is the way most religions define God.</p>
<p>Exactly! He defines god as a cause that is not constrained by time. Something not constrained by time is infinite or everliving. If I was not constrained by time, I would be infinite or forever living. That was exactly my point. In Kalams argument god is not constrained by time or is infinite. You said god being infinite was an assumption or BS. I disagree. I think you missed my point in my last post. I was trying to tell you that such a definition of god is taken from religions. THE IDEA OF GOD EMERGES FROM
RELIGIONS, AND THEREFORE THE DEFINITION OF GOD AS RELIGIONS KNOW IT IS USED IN THE ARGUMENT. If you research religions, and I promise you
that in the holy book of most major or minor well established religions(not the ones like who believe that we were created by aliens ), but well established religions you will find the wordings on something along the lines. GOD IS FOREVER LIVING, GOD WAS BORN AND GOD WILL NEVER DIE. OR EVEN THAT GOD IS INFINITE. Therefore, the idea that god is infinite is coming from religions, and religions are the only proper source for the definition of god. It is not an assumption, but it is a definition coming from a the only proper source. And of course you have the total right to say that religions are incorrect, and therefore the source is incorrect, and therefore the god in the
argument is incorrect. I will give you that, but taking their definition of god, you can not say that the possibility of the existence of god does not exist. </p>
<p>"(1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence."
Quantum Mechanics might say otherwise. Particles come in and out of existence without a cause. I don't know this to be true, since I don't know anything about QM, but it is a worth a look at. It doesn't make sense to me either but I have been told that is is possible.</p>
<p>Response: No I know of no such example where particles come in existence without a cause. Give me an example of where something came in existence without a cause. Something may come in existence and we may not know the cause, but we have never proved that cause does not exist. </p>
<p>"(2) The universe began to exist."
If God is not constrained by time (ie he doesn't have a cause) then how can he at one point decide to make the universe? </p>
<p>Response: The universe did begin to exist. The argument at this point is not stating that god made the universe. It is stating the the Universe began to exist. Scientifically, the universe did begin to exist at one point. or Do you disagree? or Do you believe that the was infinite or it always existed? But that would contradict your own beliefs becauseyou said that god being infinite is an assumption. Wouldnt the universe being
infinite be also an assumption. So if the Universe was finite then it began to exist, and if it was infinite then you cant rule out the idea of god being infinite. Which way do you lean? Either way it is a lose/lose situation.:) So the statement in this argument is valid</p>
<p>"(2.1) Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
(2.11) An actual infinite cannot exist." You stated: How do you prove and actual infinite can't exist? It can certainly exist mathematically, and it might very well exist in nature. Put two mirrors in front of each other, that is kind of what it might be like. </p>
<p>Once again brother lose/lose situation. So you say that an infinite can exist, but you also said god being infinite is an assumption. That is a condrictation. In conclusion, taking you own you words into accont, I conclude that you can not dismiss the possibility of there being a god. :)</p>
<p>People need to believe in something greater. That there is a reason for life. That something perfect and better then us exists. That there is a reason that some things happen, and it is not a coincidence. Like Claridge said, there were times were he could have been killed but wasn't and he felt the presense of this "higher" being, this is a perfect example.</p>
<p>And Sohrab, why do you have to prove that god doesnt exist? Some people believe god exists, others need to believe he exists. Let them believe, it doesnt hurt you (theres no use arguing + + that they believe in something you consider illogical, unproven, and false that doesnt make them "stupid" or ur view better)</p>