My beliefs

[Link]

Well I was the wrong one here, so there's no real need to apologise for anything IMHO [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Larry_OHF]

I was drawn into reading some of your posts due to the philisophical and scientific analysis that was being discussed, and I just happened to have this website pulled up where I am having to do a paper on some skeptic stuff. Anyway, I found this quote that I wanted to feed you guys.

A statement like "There is no God, and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes" cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

great quote, larry. interpretations of scientific findings require as much faith as religious belief - and i'm saying that as someone with science as his avocation. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I was drawn into reading some of your posts due to the philisophical and scientific analysis that was being discussed, and I just happened to have this website pulled up where I am having to do a paper on some skeptic stuff. Anyway, I found this quote that I wanted to feed you guys. A statement like "There is no God, and there can't be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes" cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science (Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union. Quoted in The Davis Enterprise, Jan. 22, 1999).

This comes very close to what I stated some days ago in one of the religion topics. Atheists are believers too, because they "believe that not". They have faith in the non-existence of god.
Paraphrasing Nietzsche: "By negating god they actually acknowledge his existence."
When a lot of people like Thomas of Aquinus tried to proof the existence of god and a lot of people tried to disprove it Immanuel Kant was the first (known) who proved that god's existence (referring to the omnipotent Judaeo-Christian god) can neither be proved of disproved.
It's as simple as that: To prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient being you have to be omnipotent/omniscient yourself. Even for understanding the proof you'd have to be omniscient. As human beings are not they can never be sure of god's existence/non-existence. Even if god himself showed himself and worked some wonders in public that would not be solid evidence that he is omnipotent or even exists because as a human the only thing you CAN know is that you don't know (scio nescio).

This is why I prefer the agnostic way. There may be a god but since I can never KNOW I don't worry about that [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Faceman: ...Immanuel Kant was the first (known) who proved that god's existence (referring to the omnipotent Judaeo-Christian god) can neither be proved of disproved. It's as simple as that: To prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient being you have to be omnipotent/omniscient yourself. Even for understanding the proof you'd have to be omniscient.

again, to draw a mathematical analogy, this reads a lot like godel's incompleteness theorem. it states that no descriptive system of mathematics can ever explain itself. by definition, therefore, there must be a higher system than it in order for it to make sense.

this can go on ad infinitum. to use the omniscient being example, to understand and explain god, one would have to be above them, a meta-god if you will. and to understand and explain that meta-god, one would have to be a meta-meta-god, etc.

the copenhagen interpretation runs into a similar problem. if collapsing of statistical probabilities of reality at some point in the universe requires and observer which is outside the point (ie system) being observed, the statistical probability affecting the system on the level which the observer exists requires an observer above them, and that observer requires an observer, etc.

Originally posted by Faceman: This is why I prefer the agnostic way. There may be a god but since I can never KNOW I don't worry about that [img]smile.gif[/img]

live well. be good to yourselves and each other. can it really be that simple?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by sultan: getting to the heart of the subject will require some background reading. one of the best books to have both, and in layman's terms, was David Darling's 1993 work 'Equations of Eternity'. The really great stuff on philosophical implications is near the end, but you're well prepared by the early chapters and it's an easy read. It's worth mentioning that Darling doesnt do much debating around the interpretations (because the copenhagen interpretation is not the only contender), but rather states his view and them moves forward, building as if predicated on fact. So, using your analogy, it's a stone well worth picking up and examining, even if you dont decide to take it with you on your journey.

[img]smile.gif[/img] Thanks, I will check that book out soon.

Currently I am studying holographic reality theory, by way of the book 'The Holographic Universe" by Talbot. The author of the book heavily draws upon the seperate works of a physicist named David Bohm and a neurophyiologist named Karl Pribam.

Anyway, I have a ways to go in the book (it is an insightful and facinating read so far!!!), but I was wondering if you have any thoughts about this theory and about this David Bohm fellow?

[ 11-04-2003, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

Pikachu, you made this post in another thread, yet didn't reappear there. Just checking that you're still around.

[Pikachu_PM]

Aiy, I'm still here...sorry. Had to go out of town last weekend and didn't have net access

[Yorick]

Pikachu, in case you didn't read it in the other threas... here it is here:


Pikachu, I feel I have to pull you up on some of your "facts".

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: The bible was written by man (5 different men, in fact) and whether you believe it was inspired by God or not the fact is man is fallible, whether God is or not.

Not sure where you got that information, but the bible was in fact written by over 40 authors. Not merely 5. The consistency, flow, accuracy and conhesion despite having over 40 authors (with years seperating them all) is one testament to divine inspiration.

The New testament alone was written by John, Paul, Peter, Jude, Luke James, Mark and Matthew. The old testament writers include Moses, David, and Solomon to name the tip of the iceberg.

By comparison, the Qu'ran was 'recited' by Muhammad.

Christians believe the Bible is the "inspired word of God", not the dictated word of God as Muslims believe the Qu'ran is. As such, the human element is taken into account. We believe that what resulted is what God intended his message for us to be.

One of the reasons that the bible has a tendency to focus on the greatness of the second son's through most of the book is due to much of the bible being written by the people of the Northern tribes of the early Isrealites. The Northern tribes were, in effect, 'second sons' of the Southern Isrealites, as when the King (I forget his name) died, he had two sons and two high priest. Each priest supported one of the sons. The first son kept the kingdom and declared there to be only one high prisest. He banhished the second son and his priest to Northern Isreal. I have not expalined this well, but suffice to say, biases have pretty much been proven in the bibles writing.

I am not sure what you mean here at all. What do you mean the bible is focussing on the greatness of the second son? Many great men and women of the bible were not "second sons".

The King you are referring to is Solomon. He died and his son Rehoboam ruled all Israel. The "north" - which was in fact all the tribes of Israel except Judah - rebelled under Jeroboam. But jeroboam was not a second son of Solomon. His father was Nebat.

As i said, the "north" was all the other tribes except for Judah. Now, even Judah himself was I believe the fourth son of Jacob. Neither the oldest, nor the second oldest. To my knowledge Reuben and then Simeon were.

As to bias.... yes bias is an inescapable reality. Even so, the bible writers recorded their losses, their humiliations, and their leaders faults. For example King David, hero of all Israel, military genius, musician and songwriter of incredible renown is recorded in the bible as committing one of the worst sins. Essentially killing a loyal warrior so he could take his wife. Plus, Davids own sons rebelled against him, twice.

Honesty, accuracy, truth. Even when it was humiliatingly painful.

Now, if you ask me if I am sprititual, the answer is certainly, yes...just in a different way. There may in fact be a god, but I see 'Him' more as the total consciences of 'us' with us being the ENTIRE universe. We may think we are each different ppl, but in truth we are one in the same. Each of us are the universe becoming self aware of itself.

Sure... pantheism. My problem with pantheism is that if it's right, the universe is having a big wank. Whereas Christianity paints a picture of a creator God loving us. Loving another person vs masturbating. Which would you do if you were omnipotent and able to do anything and everything?

I believe there is a higher power to the universe, but I do not believe a single one of the religions have it all right...or all wrong. I believe in tolerance, and I believe life itself to be a miracle and sacred regardless of what people believe. I would not want to worship any real or false God who would damn a 'non-believer' to eternal hell fire simply because he doubted---even if he did good works his entire life.

Sounds good to me... However, I believe God will not force people to pend eternity with him, who don't want to be with him. I don't see heaven as a reward for being a nice person, and hell as being a punishment for being a bad person, but heaven as spending an eternity with God, and hell being eternal seperation from God.

if God gave us free will, he's not going to force us to love him, nor spend an eternity with someone we don't want to be with.

Hence during this life we make that choice. Jesus offers eternal life with him, and we can take it or throw it away. I know where I'm going.

My problem with a lot of religions, as institutions, is that for all their preaching of good works, they cause more pain and suffering than not. Do you know how many countless lives have been ended in the name of God? How many candles have been put out, never to burn again, simply because they disagreed with a more powerful cultures spiritual beliefs?

I don't know too many actually. What I do know is that politicians and people with power - desiring more power and money - have USED RELIGION as a way to motivate, justify and pursue their own agenda.

Do you know how many people out there believe their Religion is the one TRUE religion. Do you know how many different religions believe this with as much certainty as as any Christian? Well, only one religion IF ANY can be right..what makes you so certain it is yours?

The certainty that comes from thoroughly investigating those other paths and finding mine to be the only one that removes WORKS from the list of essentials. The only one that speaks of a God that loves me so much, he would die for me to be with him. This correllates with all the love I see in the world.

A certainty from seeing my God work daily, physically impacting my life and senses, and a certainty, that no matter whether others are wrong or not, no matter whether others are know him or not, or whether they will be with him in heaven or not, I HAVE AN ASSURANCE of the path I am on.

I also see the benefits in THIS LIFE that knowing Jesus and following in this manner brings. As a humanitarian alone, I am convinced that the Hindu caste system is a form of apartheid, that Buddhism followed to the letter results in a reduced experience of the positives of life - such as embracing love and enjoying positive experiences with relish - that Islam keeps people in fear and obesience, and that reincarnation belief encourages people to keep the status quo, that the poor and opressed are living out punishments from anoter life, and we should not help them.

My strong feelings about other paths are due to the negatives they accord living in this life COMPARED TO the positives people experience when turning from Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. I personally know people released from the shackles I am speaking of, which only convinces me, that WE NEED JESUS in this world.

Maybe it is the one true religion, but the fact that most Christians won't even acknowledge that it MIGHT not be is ludacrous (in my opinion). I'm not asking people to renounce their faith, just THINK as much as they FEEL.

Faith involves the existence of doubt. Pragmatic certainty is not an evil. You may as well assume you exist. It will mean you have a more fun life. Look at roleplay. It's better when you dive in convincing yourself it's real. When it's not, it's not as fun.

So life may all be an illusion. May as well dive in while we're here, rather than get to the end and think... bugger... I wish I'd appreciated sunlight more, while I experienced it.

Ultimately I am not anti-religion...what I am against is people using an authority who MAY OR MAY NOT exist through writings that may or may not be the work of said authority IF he/she exist to justify, througout history, opinions and actions that are at there very nature destructive and and devisive.

I agree

Lastly, i resent any implication that one must be religious to be a good person...in actuallity some of the greatest humanitarians of the world have been either athiest or agnositic. I believe that once one excepts that deeds are more important than belief, we can all realize that for better or worse we are all part of the same place and that our differences are what makes us stronger...not weaker

Christianity is not a way to become perfect. It is a way to have a relationship with God. To that end, it can also be argued that perfect people don't need Jesus. That the more sinful a person initially was, the more Jesus grace worked in their life, and the more love they were shown.

One doesn't need to be religious to be a good person, and one doesn't need to be a good person to be religious.

However, if you want to know God in an intimate personal way where he speaks, effects your life and carries you through your weakness, you may want to consider accepting Jesus, and the Holy Spirit that fills your life as a result.

[Timber Loftis]

You know, Yorick, the "big wank" is a good point. I take it to mean that you can't have dialectical maturation (and therefore perhaps any maturation) of understanding without an "other." I like it, and I'll think on it.

I am not a Pantheist. I think that while every living consciousness (of which we are aware) in the universe grows in a dialectic way, it is not necessarily the case that the universe itself does. For me, the universe doesn't necessarily have consciousness. Creatures in it do, but it just is.