The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > On faith > Comments

On faith : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 13/9/2018

I waited for God, or Jesus, to speak to me. No message has ever come to me from on high.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All
Well Don, in order to believe a man called Jesus died on a cross, to pay for the sins of the entire world? One must also hold open in the mind, the possibility of the opposite or the other.

Even so, when I look at the sheer incomprehensible grandeur of the visible universe//night sky. And note that there really is more visible stars in the firmament than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

Then contemplate the sheer number of times these same stars had to die and rise like a phoenix from the ashes, born again as new stars, just to create the building blocks of life.

I don't wonder if there was or is a god or a purpose to everything. To believe all this happened perchance Ludicrous! As is the notion, life created itself.

I mean we can and have created viruses (pseudo-life) in the lab. But only in carefully created and controlled conditions and then only in the presence of a supervising intelligence.

Why it'd be more feasible and at far fewer odds, for a whirlwind to whip through a junkyard and create a fully functioning flyable 747, than for much more complex life to have created itself from chance and fortuitous serendipity?

Finally as someone who died and returned to tell about it. I can say with absolute confidence, life doesn' end with apparent physical death! And Go does speak to us, as he spoke to me.

And I can tell you it's extremely disconcerting to hear voices coming out of thin air! And even more so, when you understand what they're saying.

And in essence say, churches, catechism and a brainwashed from birth for or against belief system proves naught!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 13 September 2018 12:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would agree Don that it seems that “only a quite small proportion of 'Christians' actually know what it is they believe in”. As far as whether we are “not yet a strongly secular society” I think that we are rapidly becoming one.

Of course anyone can claim to be whatever they like: why it is that so many still identify as ‘Christian’ on the census form when their actual commitment to genuinely following the way of Jesus seems to be non-existent, I don’t know. I doubt that the next generation will continue the charade, and surely, as a matter of integrity, that will be a good thing.

I do wonder though if it will be a better world to live in.

For a start, a secular/materialist worldview is, in my opinion, unable to provide a foundation for objective morality. If all we are left with is moral relativism then the (frightening) rule of ‘might makes right’ will quickly come to dominate.

If oblivion is all that awaits us at death, whether we are rich or poor, wise or foolish, kind or selfish, ignorant or educated, then what is the point of one’s existence, especially if one has had a very tough life?

Further, it is hard to see how free will, all appearances to the contrary, can exist in a purely material universe. And if there is no free will then we are just machines that can’t have any influence on anything that happens anyway.

None of this proves Christianity to be true of course but it may give us pause before too readily overlooking it and throwing in our lot with materialism.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 13 September 2018 12:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting account of your faith or lack of faith story Don. Much of your observances do ring true to the current state of play with the church and faith.

Genuine Christian faith all boils down to whether you accept Jesus Christ as being the Son of God, the sacrifice for our sins, our Coming Judge and of course HIs ressurection.

In my opinion the vast majority of thinking people who reject Christ don't want to live in what they see as the moral restraints that God requires. That is despite the fact that these so called restraints gives us protection and even freedom.

Yep it takes some self searching (not pleasant) to believe in one's sinfulness but thankfully a great joy in finding or being found by the only Sinless One.

btw When reading the Scriptures you could hardly define the Catholic church as representatives of Christ. The other clear proof of how wicked we become when we deny God is our current 'secular/feminist/marxist whose fruit is putried. Fatherless kids, the murder of the unborn, massive suicide rates, rebellion, breakdown of family are all fruit of the stupidity having God and His ways driven out of our schools, Governments and unis. Blind Freddy can see that. Secularism is collapsing as it is a death culture. Unfortunatly should God allow us to continue something far worse that what we have now will replace the void left by godliness.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 13 September 2018 12:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion has killed Faith !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 September 2018 1:01:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The evil that is Pell has done much to erode faith in Faith.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 13 September 2018 2:33:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the information on Australian retired lawyer Victor Zammit's site on the scientific proof for life after death and what happens when you die of interest.
Posted by Francesca, Thursday, 13 September 2018 3:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don and "runner".
It is quite wrong to say, as runner does
" the vast majority of thinking people who reject Christ don't want to live in what they see as the moral restraints that God requires. "

It is the search for meaning and for rail lines to run along that has created "God". Man created God for that reason.

The creation of God and faith and all non- evidence based faith and ideologies, ( e.g. Communism and Fascism) have given rise to huge injustice and premature death-Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao purges, Protestant and Catholic killings, Muslim and Christian killings and Jewish suffering and killings..

We can only have universal progress when we have rejection of ideologies and religion and substitute the goal of progress of the human race as our guide.

The best understanding of these important questions I have read is Lloyd Geering's "Tomorrow's God" first published in NZ in 1994. A theologian by training and atheist by reasoning, Geering was Professor of Old Testament Studies at Knox College Dunedin and Foundation Professor of Religious Studies at Wellington University
Posted by Old Man, Thursday, 13 September 2018 3:22:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I waited for God, or Jesus, to speak to me. No message has ever come to me from on high."

What makes you think that you are important enough to be spoken to?
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 13 September 2018 3:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The creation of God and faith and all non- evidence based faith and ideologies, '

the totally irrational, unscientific theory of evolution fits this faith description old man. Open your eyes to the obvious and you will see that greed, lust, pride, arrogance has led to killings including the millions of unborn babies. Yep you and me are part of the problem. Thankfully God provided a solution.

'Universal solution' will never occur while man is largely in denial of truth. Our universities and academia are evidence of this. One would need to be very foolish to believe that man has the answers to its problem. Academia creates as many problems as it solves. Your rebellion and denials add to the worlds problems as much as anyone else.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 13 September 2018 3:40:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hang on there, Pete. Pell hasn't been convicted of anything; and he might never be convicted of anything. He is in limbo because over-zealous police charged in without sufficient investigation. That's on the record.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 13 September 2018 3:44:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Don, for a thoughtful essay and candid expression of your personal experiences in religious development.

However, I am puzzled why a youthful interest in girls precluded living a good moral life. That sounds like mistaken preaching by your pastors, or unlucky misunderstanding on your part. It perpetuates the myth that woman is a temptress.

You confess to being more agnostic than anything else. There is, of course, absolutely nothing wrong with being agnostic or theist or atheist, so long as one is genuinely so and lives life accordingly. All three, in their psychological and epistemological essence, affirm the existential reality of belief, or, in scientific terms, the necessity to doubt. Without doubt, we cannot have science. Without doubt, we cannot have religion. In a very real sense, there is no moral virtue in being unquestionably certain.

Neither the theist nor the atheist can ever be certain of their belief or disbelief in God. To claim certainty is to delude oneself, either way. The best attitude at all times is to ask oneself why there is something rather than nothing. Neither science nor religion can answer that most basic question.

Don, I am concerned about your declaration that you are still waiting for some signal or reply from high above. Even if you are uncertain about God's existence, it is best not to tempt him or her. Moreover, given science tells us that the cosmos will survive for several more billion years, you are going to have to live for a very, very long time before you can receive God's reply to your demand.

Finally, Don, thank you for your speech in Armidale in 1981 championing the value of the humanities and the arts. For me at least, it has remained a good corrective to the recent and current over-excessive insistence on doing STEM, useful as they all are.
Posted by apzarb, Thursday, 13 September 2018 4:07:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I identify with runner's comments, particularly-

"Genuine Christian faith all boils down to whether you accept Jesus Christ as being the Son of God, the sacrifice for our sins, our Coming Judge and of course His resurrection."

I also endorse the following statement by Peter Hitchens-

At the "The Festival of Dangerous Ideas," Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher) suggested that the most dangerous idea in the world was that,
"Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead."
When asked why Jesus' resurrection was dangerous, (59th Minute) Hitchens said this:
"Because it alters the whole of human behavior and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject it, it alters us all as well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it."

I find it challenging that the Apostle Paul took a whole chapter (1Corinthians 15) to highlight the resurrection of Christ and its implications for Christians looking for his coming again at the end of the age.

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
(English Standard Version)
Posted by LesP, Thursday, 13 September 2018 4:18:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi ttbn

Well yes, Pell is the kind of man of exalted rank, moralty and intellect who does all Catholics proud.

Hence he more than deserves the respect befitting a Cardinal, nay royalty, as a "Prince of the Church".

We ordinary Australians should not forget, that "In the case of cardinals, they are always treated in protocol of Catholic countries as equivalents of royal princes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_the_Church
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 13 September 2018 5:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don, what do you expect ? God has all manner of magic, burning bushes, stopping the sun from its natural course across the sky, making ravens feed blokes in the desert, whales swallowing people, smiting here and there at will. He/She's used to be grovelled at, and you don't.

He/she hangs around for billions of years (well, from everlasting really) and then has the bright idea of creating the world, with animals and plants and people on it. Have you ever one that ? No, none of us have. Job was smart enough not to complain when god launched his tirade about that sort of thing.

But on the whole, it's a pretty good trick. Shame it didn't turn out as he/she assumed, but we've had only six thousand years so far. Not his problem any more though.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 13 September 2018 5:58:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet,

"Well yes, Pell is the kind of man of exalted rank, moralty and intellect who does all Catholics proud."

You got that right at least; are you not going to comment on your slight mistake in condemning him before the Law has had it's go?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 13 September 2018 7:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I waited for God, or Jesus, to speak to me. No message has ever come to me from on high.
Don Aitkin
Well, some people never get the message or take the ear plugs out or stare but can't see.

I wouldn't call myself religious even by the longest possible stretch of the imagination because I can't subscribe to the nonsense dished up by various religious outfits.

I have no solid view on the God vs no God debate. All i can say is that by having the occasional inquisitive read in Bibles & the prophecies stated it must make even the most non-believers stop & think. I'm 50/50 on the whole subject & I believe that even just living reasonably close along the rules of the ten commandments the world could be a darn good place to exist until it's time to hang up the boots.
Stupidity & the stupids' exploitation of stupidity is sufficient to give us the problems we face everyday.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 September 2018 7:33:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You gotta laugh out loud when Pell argues that "catholics" need to return to their ancient roots of small communities.

Never mind that there are now more "catholics" in the world than ever before both in total numbers and as a percentage of the human population. And that the catholic church runs the world largest propaganda machine. A majority of the Supreme Court judges in the USA are catholics. There are now many catholics in the current federal government, including cabinet cabinet ministers. In Menzies time there were hardly any at all - perhaps none. The catholic church is of course a major player in world politics. Always has been of course. Do a search on the topic the vatican and world politics.

So somehow catholics are supposedly being marginalized and even persecuted.

Never mind too that if the catholic church did revert back to its ancient roots it would have to abolish or renounce all of the above. It would have to abolish the vatican and especially its political status as an independent state with all of its associated diplomatic privileges. It would have to divest itself of most/all of its worldly wealth. It would have to abolish the pope and the cardinals with their conspicuous fancy dress and their luxurious palaces. It would have to throw away with both hands its monstrous magisterium.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 13 September 2018 7:36:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Issy

Is it not obvious His Eminence (1) Cardinal Pell should retain his status indefinitely.

Pell for Prime Minister? Couldn't be worse than his loyal Abbott.

(1) http://adoremus.org/2009/08/15/how-to-address-church-officials-bishops-priests/
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 13 September 2018 7:48:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagent,

I know all that, learned it in school; how are you going on the Innocent till proven Guilty bit?

In Aussie parlance, it's known as "the fair go".
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 13 September 2018 8:31:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George Pell faces trial as a pedophile. Hardly a good example of Christianity in action.

I was shocked to see his essay in the Quadrant.

When pushing Pell forward as example for good Christian values, this point should be at the least addressed.
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 13 September 2018 9:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faith has nothing to do with logic that suits us ? I believe that those designer religions are the principal reason for all those weird & wonderful happy-clapping outfits coming onto the scene like on a conveyor belt.
Jesus loves you no matter how silly you are or you'll get to lay 72 underaged girls if you can prove your gullibility.
Read a few lines in the Bible. Read how the Earth was described as a circle that is not supported 3000 years before the smarter ones started to realise the Earth was round & not flat.
Just don't take it All literally after all, it does require thought to get the gist of what's written.
If you believe or not is not really the be all & end all but do keep an open mind.
It only requires you to be a consumer to be part of mainstream but once you start thinking for yourself you will get a different outlook on it all.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 September 2018 9:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Life is not a quiz!

Faith has nothing to do with whatever beliefs one happens to hold: you just don't get heavenly points for adopting this or that mental idea.

Rather, faith is being tested when one is called to sacrifice, at those times when rational analysis seems to indicate that doing some wrong act will [and is the only way to] fulfil your dreams; and at those times when it seems that doing something good would cause you an idiotic loss.

Others may laugh at you, but if you have faith then you will continue to do good and avoid evil regardless.

Keep thinking of God, day and night. How you think of Him and what stories you attribute to Him, is inconsequential: what matters is that when other thoughts tempt you and seem more interesting, more enticing, you tell them: "Get behind me, Satan" and heroically push them out while keeping focused on God alone - this is true faith!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 September 2018 2:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe that there is life after death and I am 101% sure that I will never be disappointed.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 14 September 2018 11:08:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

Never be disappointed?

First disappointment comes when your head is forcefully squeezed as you fall off the nice warm water and struggle to breath, then someone hangs you upside down by the leg, hits your back and pricks you with needles. For about a year you would have no tools to rationalise your numerous pains, hunger, thirst and itching, how less so to communicate them and ask for help, only to lie on your back completely helpless.

Next will come a host of childhood maladies and injuries, then compulsory schooling, indoctrination and bullying. You may well also be born into poverty, famine, natural disasters, crippling diseases, war, crime, a tyrannical family and all other forms of child abuse. Next might come conscription and the accompanying horrors. Following will come many years of struggling to earn a living and the chances are that you would be forced to work in a demeaning job, or you may be kept at home, be beaten by your husband and made to labour many times and take care of his whims and numerous children, getting old and diseased before you can even begin to enjoy your life.

I wish there was no life after the death of our current bodies, that we need not suffer again and again, but the reality is that until and unless you reach God, this vicious cycle will ruthlessly continue.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 September 2018 12:11:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yep the rationale of something from nothing, design from a non designer, order from chaos. Congratulations you clever ones. And to call it 'rational'. What a joke. No wonder you have witches cheering the death of babies working for planned parenthood. And so the mockers feel smug in their denials of what is obvious. Who really has the greater faith. I suggest it is the irrational ones who choose to be blind.
Posted by runner, Friday, 14 September 2018 3:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i think we still have a lot of corrections to make to the misinterpretations of the scriptures & associated stories before the bulk of humans will be able to develop sufficient decency for the required integrity.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 15 September 2018 7:02:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual

What misinterpretations of what scriptures would you be referring to?

And what level of decency do you consider necessary for this reinterpretation of scripture to occur?
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 15 September 2018 9:40:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Your ideas from the above posts are confusing. See if I have this right. Your a reincarnationist, correct?

You imply by your writings, you must reach a standard of holiness to enter heaven, or be recycled through the earthly mantle until the required standard is reached.
You must present good works to God as a price of entry?

For if you are a Christian, than good works alone, will not be sufficient to enter heaven.
You will be chosen for that role. ( the doctrine of the elect). But God alone knows who they will be, so you better keep trying, with good works thrown in, for without good works, the gates of heaven are closed, and the gates of hell will open: no second chances. (Unless your a catholic, in which case there is a holding yard called purgatory).
Posted by diver dan, Saturday, 15 September 2018 10:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Well you can call me an anti-reincarnationist...

Reincarnation occurs, but it is not a good thing, it is something to escape from.

Yes, I believe that indeed there is heaven (more precisely several heavens) and that those with exceptional good works reach there, rather than the holy: heaven is NOT a holy place, heaven is a place of extreme pleasure where one enjoys the rewards for their good deeds.

But no matter how good you were, eventually your merits will be exhausted: it could take millions of years but eventually you will need to be reborn in this or some other world where suffering continues, thus heaven is a trap and something to avoid.

Hell too, BTW, is not eternal: eventually one's demerits are also exhausted, then they are reborn.

By God's grace + your willingness to accept it, one can escape this vicious cycle of birth and death, realise one's true identity as God and never be born again (with the exception of very few saints who are chosen to return to the world and teach, showing others the way out).

Your willingness to accept God's grace is not some theoretical thought-process or a quiz where you must tick the correct boxes: you must actually renounce completely your sense of ego, that of supposedly being a separate entity who desires, feels and acts. Accept in your heart of hearts that your acts, good or bad, are not really yours, your feelings, good or bad, are not really yours and even your desires, good or bad, are not really yours.

God's will is being done, anyway, on earth as in heaven, so to seek God, please remove this barrier, this illusion as if anything is "your" work.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 15 September 2018 11:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Don Aitkin.

Thank you for writting your journey in faith aspects. I hope you find God in your life, or at least find a way to trust Him, even if you've never seen Him or found Him in a miracle kind of way.

If this helps there is one thing I can offer. Some times you have to believe in order to give something the chance to justify your belief in it. When it comes to God, I think there are many levels of believing in Him. From just accepting Him that opens up a relationship and prayer. Without that much it might be hard to get a response. But not impossible. It'll be His choice though. And His choice might sometimes be to let you hear Him from what's already been given in the bible.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 16 September 2018 6:48:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Outside of accepting God to be real, a second element is also the believing in the bible and the teachings in the bible. Like you said, if the world followed the 10 commandments more then the world would likely be a much better place. This set of belief in God to follow after His teachings and His lessons is another layer to believing in God. Looking at any of the teachings in the bible and trying to learn from them and apply it I think will reap a good foundation in any person.

As Runner pointed out. Being Christian comes down to accepting Jesus as the Son of God, our redeemer for our sins, and someday our king and judge of the world. It's not as scary as it sounds though with how much Jesus taught to love one another, and to do good in the face of evil. That's the kind of Judge and King I would like. One that wants everyone to succeed and to even seem to forgive those that killed Him.

A third element to believing in God (or in Jesus) is trusting them. This overlaps in part to trying to follow Jesus, but it also can go in the area of trusting them to have your back kind of thing. Even when things go bad, trusting that God has a plan for this and that this isn't over.

For the most part I think belief and faith can be one or more of these three elements. Usually it's probably at least two of them. Regardless I hope you can find God. He's worth it.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 16 September 2018 6:48:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu.

The promises of God are greater then an indivual Journey to finally become part of Him.

On an indivual aspect it's the promise of what's to come with heaven, as well as the hope (and sometimes the experience) that God is in our lives. Helping us, changing us, or even just looking out for us on occassion and even answering prayers. On an indivual aspect the hopes from being a Christian are that you can be close to God in heaven, as well as the hope of finding Him in our lives today. And in that indivual aspect it might be simular to how you understand God to be. However there is one other aspect too.

The promise to redeem the world. The promis to one day fix the world is something I hope for greatly. And that God can be testified in people's lives helps justify that hope in God's promise.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 16 September 2018 7:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

"I wish there was no life after the death of our current bodies, that we need not suffer again and again, but the reality is that until and unless you reach God, this vicious cycle will ruthlessly continue"

That might be your reality but it sure ain't mine!
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 16 September 2018 9:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_now.Soon,

«the hopes from being a Christian are that you can be close to God in heaven»

In heaven you would not be closer to God because you would be too busy enjoying yourself. If God called you there, you would respond: "Wait, I am enjoying myself so much, come back later". Nor in hell, there you would be too busy suffering, just seeking a bit of relief from your pains.

It is only in between, such as on earth, where pleasure and pain are more or less balanced and one can make choices, that one can effectively seek God.

I can understand your noble desire to redeem the world: there are indeed times when the world is a relatively better place and those times will indeed eventually return and then God will indeed be testified more in people's lives, but had the world been absolutely fixed and perfect and/or been too good for too long, then it could not serve its purpose, instead becoming yet another heaven where people just want to stay and enjoy, rather than to progress spiritually.

Two analogies would be if kindergartens were "improved" by being turned into universities, so small children would be lost and unable to learn at their level; or if prisons were "improved" by being turned into 5-star luxurious hotels, so criminals would want to do more crime as they looked forward to serve time so pleasantly.

---

Dear Is Mise,

«That might be your reality but it sure ain't mine!»

This is rarely anyone's reality: we mostly consider the world to be fun and even ignore the mishaps, believing they will somehow go away and only the fun will remain. Those who realise the noble truth that the world is predominantly suffering (http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble4.htm), make effort to leave this world as soon as possible and never return, while the others remain, suffer, but consider their suffering to be accidental and transient and setting that false belief to be the norm.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 16 September 2018 11:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By all means have your doubts about God vs no God but don't let that prevent you from being a far better human being than you are now.
You can't do any damage by being better.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 16 September 2018 11:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You can't do any damage by being better"

But one can do enormous damage by thinking that one is being better,
e.g. always telling the truth!!
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 17 September 2018 8:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu

Ancient scripture is quite remarkable and very unique. These are the stories passed down by the processes of the memory code of song and dance, pre-literature.

Remarkable stories full of inconsistencies; abject failures in the light of modern knowledge. But as a guide to the correct path of life, are irrefutably valuable to our understanding of why we exist, and how civilisation survived through the long years of human history, and as a guide to goodness, and to lighten the path to human betterment.

The plague to modern man is narcissism. The scriptures abound with stories of the importance of civilisation over the individual. Selflessness.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 17 September 2018 9:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Religion has killed Faith !'

try telling the gw alarmist that. Even straight facts doesn't hinder their blinbd faith.
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 September 2018 9:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Correct overall, but just a few fine tunings:

«abject failures in the light of modern knowledge.»

Modern knowledge is limited to the objective world.
A failure can only be claimed when someone attempts to provide objective knowledge, but did the ancients attempt to provide such knowledge? I don't think that they even had a notion of "objective" or interest therein, which is a pretty modern term.

«are irrefutably valuable to our understanding of why we exist»

... why we seem to exist.

«and to lighten the path to human betterment.»

Any human betterment is incidental and temporary - Ancient scripture lightens the path to God, rather than to human betterment.
Had the objective been human betterment, then the enlightened wise should have remained in the world to help lifting it, but by and large, once they found God, they all left the world, allowing humanity to fall again (analogously, think of boiling water molecules at 100°C, evaporating and leaving the rest of the water at 100°C exactly, rather than staying and heating the water further).

«The scriptures abound with stories of the importance of civilisation over the individual. Selflessness.»

Scriptures teach selflessness as a means to be freed from one's false sense of "self", not because civilisation is more important than individuals.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 17 September 2018 3:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Individual.

I'd also like to know what you mean by correcting the misinterpretations of scriptures. Not that I disagree that there are misinterpretations, it's just what those are usually seem to change based on the person assessing the interpretations. In my opinion, several misinterpretations start with a modern theory of the bible, that is either to correct it and interject what it would mean to the original audience (a loose concept that needs interpretation itself), or misinterpretations start by largely ignoring the bible and adopting other perspectives, then looking at the bible to find a means to justify our already held philosophies. The unfortunate part about the second kind of misinterpretations is that it's hard to step away from. We all have ideas of the world and how it works or should work. Over time these are learned with or without being taught them by parents or schools. And they become (for everyone) our own foundation to understand anything else by.

Either way, if you could go into what you mean by correcting the misinterpretations of the scripture it would be appreciated.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 2:40:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu. You and I have vast differences in our picture of heaven. You indicate it to be a place of only distracting pleasure, whereas I see heaven as a place of finding God. The pleasantness of being near God in heaven is a byproduct of being near Him. It wouldn't be a distraction away from Him. As for suffering, it isn't necessary for spiritual growth. It can and does correct us and shape us, but God isn't keeping the world in a state of suffering as a means for us to all grow. He promised to eventually have a world that doesn't have the death, and sorrow that is part of the world as we know it now. It's also part of that promise to be an eternal change.

As of now there is no growth from generation to generation. The same lessons are learned every 2 to 4 generations that their parents and grandparents learned. If there was a kind of spiritual growth and reincarnation element then there would be growth and advancement in the generations of mankind. Evolution in human behavior kind of thing. Currently, there are no signs that we are different in behavior then the cultures of our ancestors. There isn't any way to validate your views of the world. But there are ways to validate God by the testimony of people who've found Him while still alive in this world. As well as by those who've followed God through the teachings of the bible and seeing how that fairs.

Sorry if that is a harsh tone, but there's nothing wrong with trying to validate a person's opinions to see if they are true or not. Expecially since the world is full of philosophies and explainations that are often just not true.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 2:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Currently, there are no signs that we are different in behavior then the cultures of our ancestors.//

Yes, there are. Read 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' by Steven Pinker, then tell me that there are no signs the world has improved over time.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 8:13:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sinful nature is sinful nature. What could be more evil than having casual sex and then murdering the baby. Probably only matched by paedophile priests.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 10:02:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We may have differences of terminology.

The heaven I was speaking about is where those of exceptionally good works go to reap the rewards for their merits. So long as one considers their small-self (as opposed to God, their true Self) to be the actor, the performer of all those good deeds, they reject God's grace by Whom alone all is made and thus remain separated from God.

In order to unite with God, one must renounce the sense of doership, the "I did it", no matter how great and good (and conversely, how evil) their actions are.

One who does renounce their sense of doership and allows in God's grace, can no longer be the enjoyer of any pleasures (and conversely the sufferer of any pains), then they abide with God, experiencing eternal bliss and joy in just being who they are, with no dependence on external stimuli - which I think is what heaven is in your terminology.

Being realistic about human nature, prodding through suffering is necessary for spiritual growth: some need more prodding, other less, but some is needed as in "Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me".

Eventually there will be no death and no suffering, we all will be there, but we get there each in our own good time, once we are ready to renounce our small doer-feeler-desirer-little-self and accept God's grace.

I already explained (using the boiling-water analogy) why there are no clear signs of improvement in the world over generations, only temporary ebbs and flows.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 4:34:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to all those who took the essay seriously. Perhaps I was a bit terse in saying the I have never had a message from on high. I have tried to live a 'good' life, and I set out what that might mean for me. I think I have done it without having had to 'believe' in Jesus or God, though of course there is a great deal of commonsense in the Ten Commandments (actually the Golden Rule does it best, and there is only one of it).
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 18 September 2018 8:04:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Don Aitkin. Thankyou for writting this essay. It was honest and sincere, without also being disrespectful or rude.

The rule to treat others the way you want to be treated, is an awesome and insightful rule. But one issue that most people find is where to make exceptions to this rule. When it's OK to show favoritism to one person over another, or when their actions remove the rights of our good behavior to them. The problem with this is that most everyone sees themself as a good person, even when they perform murder or theft. Usually there is an excuse. The other person deserved it, they were just asking for it, or any other number of excuses. But several of the rules in the bible put a challenge to our standards of good. Christians as part of their belief that Jesus came to rescue us from our sins, often hold the ideal that no one is really that good. Even our best still has needs to be close to God to help us to be better people, and/or to rescue us from our sins.

That might be a unique viewpoint, or there might be other religions and philosophies that say to look at your faults and turn from them. But I don't know of many philosphies outside of Christianity that will say to look to God to make you into a better man or better woman along with the standard to turn from our sins and wrongs. Too often it's on our burden to deserve God's kindness, or His reward. Not that He will help us, if we seek Him.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 20 September 2018 4:13:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

This dynamic of our behavior and our relationship is crafted in the 10 commandments also. With the first three being about our relationship with God.

1) Have no other Gods but Him. 2) make no idols to worship. And 3) To not take the name of God in vain.

Then the other 7 point to our behavior with each other.

4).Remember the Sabbath day (day of rest). 5) honor your father and mother. 6-8) to not commit murder, adultery or steal. 9) to not lie. And 10) (Possibly the hardest to live up to) to not covet you neighbor's stuff.

I hope you don't count my comments to you as disrespectful, or rude, (because .i've been accused of that before for just holding on to my Christian beliefs), but I hope very much that your search for God finds it's reward of finding Him. From my limited experience He's very much worth finding. (However it seems that that part of the bargain is still mostly on us. We still need to seek Him at the very least).

Thanks again for the essay and good luck. :)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 20 September 2018 4:14:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pell wants a return to roots. When Jesus spoke they got the hammer and nails and made him stop. Paul repeated it and was jailed like John. Romans spoke it and went to the lions and so on. The Cardinal would find that unspeakable.
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 20 September 2018 5:58:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote :

« … the rationale of something from nothing, design from a non designer, order from chaos. Congratulations you clever ones. And to call it 'rational'. What a joke »
.

That is a criticism you often make on this OLO forum – systematically directed at those who do not share your religious belief: that God created the universe and everything in it (with the exception, perhaps, of himself) – for as far as I can recall, you do not explain which god or designer made God himself, and which other god or designer made the preceding god who made God himself, and which yet other god etc., etc., …

I am curious to know from what (according to your religious belief) God made the universe and everything in it. Presumably it was not from nothing. I suppose it must have been from something. So who made that something ? Where did it come from ?

If it was God himself who made that something, what did he make it from ? Did he make it from something else that he also made, from yet something else, etc., etc. … ? Or, could it be that, all things considered, he, himself, must have simply made it from nothing ?

If, indeed, he did made it from nothing, then, it seems that your criticism applies, not just to non-believers, but to all of us – whether we believe in God or not.

In that case, your phrase should read :

« … the rationale of something from nothing, design of nothing, order out of nothing. A hearty round of congratulations to us all. But to call it “rational”. What a joke. Let us all get together, believers and non-believers, and have a good laugh – about nothing. All for one and one for all ! »

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 22 September 2018 2:48:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I am curious to know from what (according to your religious belief) God made the universe and everything in it.»

There are many speculations regarding the meaning of Genesis 1:2 even in the original text, how more so in the English translations, for example:

"And the earth was without form, and void" (KJV)
"Now the earth was formless and empty" (NIV)
"The earth was an empty waste" (NLV)
"And the earth was without order, and empty" (JUB)
"Earth was a soup of nothingness" (MSG)
"When the earth was as yet unformed and desolate" (EXB)
"The earth was completely empty" (ERV)

The original text says: "And the earth was 'Tohu' and 'Vohu'".

But what ARE those two?

Some sources suggest "Wondering" [over the desolation] and "blank-staring" [over the emptiness] while modern speculations suggest that Tohu and Vohu were archaic giant reptiles, the helpers of the goddess of salt-water, Tihamat, whom God conquered.

But bearing in mind that in very ancient times scroll-space was scarce, what I read in Genesis 1:2 is:

"And the earth was 'Oto Hu' and 'Vo Hu'": The earth was that same Him (God) and in Him.

There was nothing but God, this still is so and ever will remain so:
Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 22 September 2018 9:09:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

You've asked who created God, and then who created that creator, and so on. Here is another explaination to consider. God is the potter and everything in the universe is His making. Now when considering a craftsman of any kind, you don't ask a potter who works with clay, "are you made of clay like your vases?" Or to a mechanic building cars, "are you made of the same stuff your cars are built from?" In the same way that a craftsman isn't bound in the same way his creations are but instead of being made from clay and set in an oven, or build out of metal and plastic parts, instead that craftsman was born and is nothing like his creations because of that.

The difference here though is that God has no beginnings, but instead is eternal. With our finite world where everyone is born and dies, and everything has a shelf life before needing to be replaced or repaired, the idea of being eternal us a jarring idea. But that is what God is described as. If He is real, then He is eternal. The next should be to see if God exists, instead of arguing which philosophy is right, and inserting that God needs a creator Himself. Since God is real, and can be found if someone looks, the arguments for trying to rationalize God away are of no merit. (Not that He always is found, but if I can do it, so can you. He's not hiding).
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 23 September 2018 3:08:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu. Sorry for not getting back to you yet. The boiling water and souls finally meeting up with God is a fine explaination, but still I disagree with it. Though
I am now looking for the book that Toni Lavis recommended that the world is indeed getting better. (Thankyou for that Toni).

From what I know of the world we are still a barbaric creature. With not even too long ago a war to end all wars being followed up by it's continuation of World War II. Civil wars, genosides, and terrorism are part of our lives and part of the world. We also have inspiring acts of kindness and compassion that exist along side our societies crimes and corruption. And nothing that I read from ancient texts describes us as anything different then we are now. In fact some pieces are considered timeless like Shakespeare who protrayed the drama of his day still applies even without kings and royalty in the world having the same focus they did then. This conclusion that we are the same as we've always been, if it is true robs me of any conclusion of people advancing through multiple lives or that people are evolving and becoming something different then what we use to be.

The other aspect of multiple lives and eventually merging with God, is something about the population growth. That our world gets more populated instead of less populated, challenges the explanation that we are all old souls living new lives until we merge with God.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 23 September 2018 3:51:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Not that people and new souls can't be created, but in a general sense the issue is that among all of the philosophies in the world, any of them can be true or can be false, until someone brings up a means to measure them by. To validate or to invalidate them. Nothing you post is something I can look at to test and measure. It is either just accepted or not accepted and that's kind of the end of it. My views have the same struggle too, except for the point about God. If you can find God then that validates that He is real. If anyone else finds Him that validates Him as well. If He answers prayers, that speak on who He is to being outside of us instead the sum of everything. And if the teachings and wisdom that is taught from God shows merit by those who act of them, that validates His ways and differentiates them from other philosophies and lifestyles.

Though these aspects to validate aren't the sum of my beliefs about God, they do reinforce them. I can speak of God as the creator and compare Him to a potter molding and creating a vase, because of the ways He acts in the world show a small amount of what He can do.

If the comparison of our souls being like boiling water evaporating little at a time, then please give me an example in the world that can be used as a means to validate the explanation. I know you believe the way you do for a reason, so I'm sure you can dig deep to share what reinforces your views as being true.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 23 September 2018 3:52:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

The speculation of the authors of the Hebrew bible are amusing. They, no doubt, did their best with their limited knowledge, logic and imagination.

Here are a few interesting indications drawn from the current state of the art of astrophysics :

Age of the universe :

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement is 13.799 billion years (give or take 21 billion years).

Composition of the universe :

Latest estimate (2013) indicates that the universe is composed of 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter, and 4.9% ordinary matter.

Shape of the universe :

The shape of the global universe is estimated to be infinite and flat.

End of the universe :

Alternative theories for the ultimate fate of the universe include a Big Rip, Big Bounce, Big Freeze, Big Crunch or possible proton decay.

The time remaining before the universe ends in a Big Rip is 22 billion years. For a Big Crunch the time left is 11 trillion years.

Life Span of the universe :

The estimated maximum life span of the universe is 25.000 billion years (Big Bang to Big Crunch).

Age of planet earth :

4.54 billion years (give or take 50 million years).

End of planet earth :

It is estimated that the sun will commence expanding 5 billion years from now and its heat will destroy all life on earth. It will absorb/destroy planet earth 7.5 billion years from now.

Life Span of planet earth :

12 billion years

.

(Continued … )

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 23 September 2018 8:39:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued … )

.

Life on earth :

Life began on earth 3.5 billion years ago. The Sun is gradually getting hotter. Eventually it will be hot enough to evaporate all Earth's oceans, and cause a runaway greenhouse effect that sends temperatures soaring upwards. This process is estimated to begin in about 1 billion years from now, and will wipe-out all but the most resistant microorganisms.

It is unlikely that human beings could continue to survive on earth more than 1.5 billion years from now.

Life Span of human beings on planet earth :

As it seems that human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago, the maximum life span of humans on planet earth can be estimated at roughly 1.5 billion years.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 23 September 2018 8:44:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For a book about how the world is actually getting better, try Factfulness, by Hans Rosling and one or two others.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Sunday, 23 September 2018 10:33:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«From what I know of the world we are still a barbaric creature.»

In one sense, yes, our body-minds are barbaric creatures and the world is a barbaric place.

It is only natural that the world is and will remain (to somewhat varying degrees) a barbaric place, but you are not your body-mind, hence YOU are not a barbaric creature, nor do you need to continue assuming a barbaric creature as your vehicle for interacting with the world and with others.

You seem to expect the world to one day rise above nature, but this will not happen. Rather, YOU can, and eventually will, rise above nature, then the state of the world will no longer bother you.

«...robs me of any conclusion of people advancing through multiple lives or that people are evolving and becoming something different then what we use to be.»

Yes, people will remain people and do not evolve (in a spiritual sense) - it is your soul that evolves and once you realise God, you will no longer associate yourself with people.

«That our world gets more populated instead of less populated»

It does not: there are other species and elements, other stars, other galaxies and even other universes. Despite numbering in the billions, human birth is still extremely rare.

«please give me an example in the world that can be used as a means to validate the explanation.»

There are reports of people who know [some of] their past lives, but validation requires extreme measures:

Patanjali claims in his Yoga Sutras:

“When one is steadfast in non-possessiveness there arises knowledge of the why and wherefore of past and future incarnations.”
http://breatheyogaandwellness.com/aparigraha-the-things-we-cling-to-cause-us-to-suffer/

In other words, validation requires that you cease to cling to things, both what you already own and what you still desire to own. It's a tall order and I am not yet anywhere up to it myself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 23 September 2018 3:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu. Thank you for answering my question on validating reincarnation. I've heard of reports people remembering something of a past life. However these reports are so rare I don't know any one who says that they have a memory of a past life. Either way it is a consideration for reincarnation. A counter point though are reports of near death experiences. Some which report to go to an afterlife of some kind, others that report seeing or meeting a family member that had died a long time ago. A third theory of what happens after we die goes into the subject matter of ghosts, and souls or spirits lingering on in certian places. Reports of ghost stories are also a consideration.

However what I really want to thank you for is the means you explained to gain the knowledge of past lives. Letting go of all attachments. I wasn't aware that this was a method of finding your past self. Instead I was under the impression this was a means to reach Narvana, or to become a sage while still alive. (Or something of that nature).

This gives me a behavior that if anyone claims they do, can be used as a measure to justify or judge reincarnation. I know people who have their own ghost stories, and I can judge their merit based on both the person when they say what they say, as well as judge it by the experiences that are described. I also know people who say they've had a near death experience, and can justify or judge those in the same way as I can ghost stories. But I haven't ever met anyone who says they have past life memories, nor do I know what attributes to look for to help find that kind of person. What you've given me is something to keep in the back of my mind in case an oppurtunity arises that I meet someone as you've described. Past lives seem to be a phenomon that is largely either accepted without validation, or regected without justification. So thank you again.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 24 September 2018 3:08:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« The difference here though is that God has no beginnings, but instead is eternal »
.

The OED defines eternal as :

« Lasting or existing forever; without end »

In other words, to be eternal, something which exists must be “without an end” – not “without a beginning”.

If something never began to exist, it does not exist – and cannot be eternal ! A race that has not begun is not a race. A child that has not been conceived is not a child.

Jesus of Nazareth, whom I imagine you believe is the son of God and therefore eternal, had his “beginnings” (to use your expression) when he was purportedly conceived by the Holy Ghost and Mary (though she was already "betrothed" to Joseph at the time).

What makes you think that your God – whom you claim (at the end of your post) to have “found” – has no beginnings ?

I must confess that makes no sense to me. Like Runner, wherever I look around at nature, I see “design”, “order” and “logic”. Everything seems perfectly “rational”. How do you explain that a God could possibly exist even though he has not yet begun to do so ?

Is that Church dogma or is it just your personal belief ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 24 September 2018 8:09:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Please keep away from ghosts and the like: this is a pathological condition where one's subtle-energy/emotional body lingers and fails to dissipate as it should soon after the physical body's death. Playing with this can be catastrophic and the bible too clearly warns against having anything to do with it.

«However these reports are so rare I don't know any one who says that they have a memory of a past life.»

Neither do I, but I know someone who knew and verified the evidence of someone else who remembered their past life (this obviously rests on the reliability of the person, whom I know and won't name).

«I was under the impression this was a means to reach Narvana, or to become a sage while still alive.»

This is correct, but Patanjali warns us in his Yoga Sutras that when someone gets very close and nearly perfects the purity of their spiritual observances, but not quite, there come the last temptations of supernatural powers, including the knowledge of past and future lives. One is warned to avoid indulging in such temptations lest they divert us of the real and final goal - God! This, I think, is similar to Jesus' last temptations in Luke 4:1-13 and Matthew 4:1-11.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 24 September 2018 9:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Yuyutsu. I don't go seeking out ghost stories or ghosts in general. But I have asked people in conversation "what are some of the stranger things you've seen." I've heard a few stories that are more on the strange side, and in that context, there's been at least two unexplained help kind of thing. One who attributes it to God helping, another one who because of it questions if God or someone exists up there, but doesn't agree with religions. At least a few had a kind of a ghost story kind of thing to share. Dreams and weird predictions have come up, as well as a more casual occurance of talking about someone and having them walk in or call around that same time.

The question when I had asked it before was mostly because I think there are strange and awe inspiring things that happen to everyone. Too many things that are unexplained to be counted as nothing, and so far most everyone has at least one story of a strange occurance to stand in wonder about. But to ease your concern, I'm not looking for ghosts, and I agree with you that the bible teaches to stay away from that kind of thing.
____________

To Banjo Peterson. That God has no beginning or end is in the bible. I would also assume that because of this, most church denominations adopt a doctrine to state that God always was and always will be. Here are a few verses to consider that this is in the bible.

Psalms 90:2.
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

Isaiah 44:6.
"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

In several verses in Revelations Jesus and God are both called the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Revelations 1:8, 1:17-18, 21:6-7, and Revelations 22:13.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 26 September 2018 5:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Thank you for indicating that various verses in the bible are the source of your belief that “God has no beginnings, but instead is eternal”.

As I pointed out in my previous post, interpreting “eternal” as meaning “without a beginning” does not correspond to the OED definition of the term which is “without an end”. For good measure, the authors of these verses you cite employ the term to cover both the past (“without a beginning”) and the future (“without an end”).

By means of this linguistic contortion, they very astutely create a conundrum that is perfectly unintelligible to the human mind (how can anything exist if it never began to do so ?).

As nobody has ever risked exposing himself or herself to contradiction and ridicule by attempting to describe God in any comprehensible detail, this unintelligible conundrum of his eternal nature is a perfect fit.

Subsequently, all the devotes are required to do is to believe. There is no other solution. It’s written in Scripture !

They can be reassured that “by their faith they will be saved” !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 27 September 2018 8:07:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The E term exist is in present tense, OED. It doesn't have the connotation "from it's beginning of existence". It doesn't have the gloss of " existing and beginning within the last 4.6 billion years of post big-bang". It could be valid to say the singularity was derived from a state prior to that disturbance of space-time . Humans can conceive that. A different time-frame is implicit .
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 27 September 2018 9:26:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I don't quite see how this lesson in cosmology which you wrote to me, fascinating as it may be, fits into the topic.

Now you raised another fascinating question: "can things exist which have no beginning?". One cannot, however, apply this question to God because God is not a thing.

Let's see:

Space? OK, unintuitive as it may be, the theory of relativity claims that space had a beginning.
Time? again, relativity claims that time had a beginning, but it is mind-boggling to think of the time-before-time...
Laws of physics? One could claim that "before" there was a universe there were no laws either, but then it is really bewildering, by which laws was the universe formed...
Laws of logic and mathematics? ?
Existence? Was there existence "before" anything existed?

For me, I won't lose sleep over those issues because I know that space, time, the laws of physics, the laws of logic and mathematics and existence itself, are all illusions and all there truly is, is God. What is your take on the beginning-or-otherwise of the above?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 September 2018 12:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it was previously believed that a fish's memory span was only three seconds, scientists now believe they can remember for up to five months
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 27 September 2018 1:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Nick,

Well you know how this was discovered?

It's that man who ordered a fish in a restaurant, but instead of eating it he was placing his ear above the fish.

So the waiter was curious and finally asked him what he was doing:
- well I was just talking with the fish!
? and what were you talking about?
- I asked the fish about how life is in the deep blue sea, but he answered me that he can hardly remember because he wasn't there for over five months...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 27 September 2018 2:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eh? why did the fish need his ear?
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 27 September 2018 2:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The information that exists in our observable Universe, that we can access and measure, only corresponds to the final ~10-33 seconds of inflation, and everything that came after. If you want to ask the question of how long inflation lasted, we simply have no idea. It lasted at least a little bit longer than 10-33 seconds, but whether it lasted a little longer, a lot longer, or for an infinite amount of time is not only unknown, but unknowable."

At 3 seconds of memory the fish didn't get far but his quarks came from 5 months or infinite , which boggles the eyes.
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 27 September 2018 4:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

What is irrational to the idea that God has always been there. Unless studies of physic's has changed since I've learned a highschool equivalent, the current understanding is the idea that energy and matter can not be created or distroyed. Just that it changes form. With this outlook even the theories of the Big Bang are affected to say the matter and energy of the universe was always there, just that they were condensed beyond the point that we can measure and discover.

(I've heard of nothing to try to prove or provide details of what existed prior to the Big Bang. The only theories that are close to do that are fringe theories that don't accept that the Big Bang happened. Something worth considering, but for the most part a moot point when discussing the beginnings of the universe, when we know nothing to relate to that kind of a world).

Regarding God being believed to have always existed, why is that irrational, when the idea that mater and energy have always existed?

Regarding faith, and believing the bible. What of that? I trust the bible because I trust God. This isn't a matter of salvation, but it's a matter of trust.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:35:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Regarding discriptions of God. Many have tried to describe who God is and what God is. It's not comprehensible. Though often people are wrong in their assertions. For a good foundation I trust the bible, which also puts God into descriptions we can understand. Who knows? It's entirely possible (and sometimes argued) that God gave us those roles and descriptions in our world so that we could understand Him better through these Biblical descriptions. Here are some I remember. If you want more detail I can look up the verses too.

God is described as a Father, as a Husband, and as a Shepard. He's described as a King, and even compared to a rich man either hiring people, or who put his servants in charge of certain responsibilities like tending the land or investing His gold. These descriptions are in the Old Testament as well as the New. And I focus on these because each of these are roles of people in our world that we can relate to or learn from being in those roles ourselves.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

The harder to fathom descriptions are still there. God is all powerful, creator of the universe, always has been and always will be, knows the end from the beginning and is all knowing as well. And that He is love, or that He is all loving. These are harder to grasp because we don't have as much to relate these positions to. But these positions can be confirmed by people by what happens in their lives. (Unfortunately experiences aren't universal, so it's worth while for believers to come together and encourage each other or correct each other).

There's more. Still from the bible. God is quick to forgive and slow to anger. Merciful, patient, and loving, but also just with His judgments and corrections. If these descriptions are true and applied to the criticisms towards the bible, then some of those criticisms can be resolved with the perspective that the people who received God's wrath are't victims. Often the people are warned and given time to turn from their sins. The wrath of God should be enough of a consequence to set anyone straight, but the examples of that wrath are still there because people continued in murder and corruption, and all kinds of sins on a societal level.

These perspectives about God though are still second in importance to the realization that He actually exists. Finding that first is worth it before struggling to come to grips with who God is.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:40:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry for the confusion. In the second post regarding descriptions of God, I meant to say "It's not incomprehensible." Meaning that you can comprend many or most of the description of who God is.

Hopefully not too many other spelling errors there, and that the reply can be understood regardless of my spelling issues.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 29 September 2018 3:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You ask :

« What is irrational to the idea that God has always been there. Unless studies of physic's has changed since I've learned a highschool equivalent … energy and matter can not be created or distroyed. Just that it changes … Regarding God being believed to have always existed, why is that irrational, when the idea that mater and energy have always existed ? »

You add :

« Regarding faith, and believing the bible. What of that? I trust the bible because I trust God … it's a matter of trust »
.

You did not indicate when you “learned a highschool equivalent” but the creation of matter from nothing (a quantum vacuum), was established as a testable scientific fact by a team of 20 American physicists from four different institutions in 1997. They published their work in the 1st Septembre issue of Physical Review Letters, a peer-reviewed, scientific journal of the American Physical Society.

We all know what we mean when we talk about matter in our daily conversations (any physical substance) but there is no single universally agreed scientific meaning of the word "matter". The same goes for energy (the ability to perform work).

Apparently, matter came from fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum. According to the physicists, these fluctuations are caused by virtual particles that simply pop into and out of existence.

In a low-energy environment, massive particles cannot borrow enough energy to exist in any quantity for even a minute amount of time, which is why we do not observe the creation of these particles in our everyday life. Whereas, in a high-energy environment such as that which existed at the beginning of the universe, there would have been adequate energy for the creation of massive particles. Scientists can now create them using high-energy accelerators.

The God hypothesis is highly unlikely.
.

Regarding your faith or trust in the bible, the concensus among scholars is that the creation narratives in Genesis are based on Mesopotamian and Sumerian mythology, not scientific fact or revelation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 29 September 2018 11:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Peterson.

I wasn't aware that particle accelerators broke the first law of thermodynamics. A massive amount of energy is needed to create the particles. That still rings true for the concept that either the matter or the energy in the universe has always existed. It wasn't created or destroyed. As far as things not having a beginning this is the point I was trying to address. It's a common understanding that the matter or the energy of the universe has always existed in some form or another.

Taking that same understanding of matter and energy and applying it to God, there is no reason to think that God is limited by having to be created. However I should clarify the point further. God can create or take away what's in the world. Because He created the universe, the 1 law of thermodynamics is a limitation to us not to God. It's just that the first law of thermodynamics dynamics shows the concept of eternity in the past, not just the future.

As for the hypothesis of God, no matter how unlikely it seems, the reality is that He exists. It's not a hypothetical, it's just real life.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 30 September 2018 4:18:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote in the first paragraph of your post :

« … either the matter or the energy in the universe has always existed. It wasn't created or destroyed »

And in the second paragraph :

« Because He [God] created the universe … »
.

I find it a bit far-fetched (to say the least) that you believe that a hypothetical God created the universe from pre-existing matter/energy that had always existed, even though it had never been created – even more so, considering that matter/energy is an integral part of the same universe you believe your hypothetical God created.

Because, if there were no matter/energy, there would be no universe. There would be just – nothing !

I’m afraid it doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
.

You also wrote :

« As for the hypothesis of God … the reality is that He exists. It's not a hypothetical, it's just real life »

I have no reason to doubt that you sincerely believe that to be true, Not_Now.Soon. However, to the best of my knowledge, the existence of any form of God has never been indisputably established. If it had, I’m sure the whole world would have heard of it by now.

As we all know, many people believe in many different Gods and all are just as convinced as you are that their God(s) exist(s) in reality, that it/they is/are the only true God(s) in “real life” (to employ your expression).

Until such time as the existence of such (a) God(s) has been indisputably established, it remains a simple hypothesis.

For that reason, “hypothetical God” is the appropriate expression except, perhaps, when addressing an audience composed uniquely of devotees who share the same or similar religious beliefs and convictions.

That said, Not_Now.Soon, please be assured that I respect your religious beliefs and convictions. I am happy for you to continue to refer simply to “God”. Perhaps you would be kind enough to reciprocate and accept that I continue to refer to the “hypothetical God” in which you believe.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 1 October 2018 1:25:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Re “hypothetical God”, clearly, God is not an hypotheses, for I do not know of anyone, religious or otherwise, who ever claimed that an hypotheses created this world or the like.

What indeed is an hypotheses is the claim that "God exists".

I agree with you that this hypotheses is false, same as would "God has blue teeth", but why should God exist in the first place (or have blue teeth for that matter)? Why make such ridiculous demands on Him?

Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing, a part of His own creation - how ridiculous and how unfit for worship would God been in that case.

So why this fuss, by both yourself and Not_Now.Soon about this silly question of God's existence?
Why worry - just love God, worship Him, remember Him at all times and aspire to be with Him always!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 1 October 2018 2:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo

If this clears up the confusion, here is my point. Either:

A) God is real and created the universe. (Making God eternal both past and future but not the universe).

Or

B) that the universe has always existed in some form or another either as a high energy state or some other mass heavy singularity.

If God exists then the 1st law of thermodynamics (which as far as I have heard hasn't been disproven) is an observation and a limitation that we have. We can't create or destroy matter or energy, only change it into something else.

Even if God doesn't exist then the idea of anything having always existed isn't unfathomable as you argued before. Because the universe in some form or another always has been. Eternal with no beginning.

That should clear up any confusion.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 1 October 2018 5:24:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Apparently, matter came from fluctuations in a pre-existing quantum vacuum."
pre-existing ? Come in, Buddha. Aum ,aum. Meditate on the pre- pre- pre- existence, world without end ,amen.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 1 October 2018 3:58:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo. I'm glad you recognize that I can call God, ,God." Instead of hypothetical or anything else. But I get the impression you'd rather I go with the other term. What point would that be for me, when I know that He isn't a hypothetical?

Either way, you said earlier:

"As we all know, many people believe in many different Gods and all are just as convinced as you are that their God(s) exist(s) in reality, that it/they is/are the only true God(s) in “real life” (to employ your expression).

Until such time as the existence of such (a) God(s) has been indisputably established, it remains a simple hypothesis."

I've wondered this several times in my life as how God can be so obvious as part of the world to me and to others they have no concept of Him being there. As of now my current hypothesis (the best that I have) isn't about God but about people. That they don't seek Him to find Him, or that they do and they find Him. The exception to this hypothesis is an experience of a believer who was an atheist. The person told his experience that even though He wasn't looking for God, and often mocked those who believed in God, or in any religion, even though this was the situation God took a moment to set him straight.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 3:44:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Here is why it's hard for me to consider the position that God doesn't exist. Because I've had Him actively do things in my life. Respond as well as answer prayers for one thing, and help me understand when first reading the bible as part of looking into what religions could be from Him. I'm not a special case of a person, that shows some special quality that the rest of the world lacks. If anything I am the lack of special qualities to be proud of. Therefore if I can do it so can anyone else. If I can find God, as a kid, as a teen, and as an adult, different points in life to show that God is still there, and hasn't abandoned me, then so can you and so can any other person who seeks Him.

He's not a hypothesis if He's real. Nor is He a hypothesis if people don't even attempt to find out if He's really there. (Untested philosophy? Bias? Honestly I don't know the correct term in those cases). If a person finds God, then the next step would have to be to find out what is from Him and what isn't. Not all religions come from Him, but whether He exists or not should never even be the question. At least in my opinion. If I can find God so can you. No one should have an excuse.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 3:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Here is why it's hard for me to consider the position that God doesn't exist.//

But you seem to find it remarkably easy to consider the position that, say, the Tao doesn't exist - even though committed Taoists will attest to it being an active presence in their lives. I have to wonder if you so readily dismiss their experiences because you don't believe those experiences to be genuine experiences of the Tao, but rather some sort of falsehood, self-deception or hallucination; or whether you immediately dismiss them out of hand because your 10 Commandments tell you to.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 6:15:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … I do not know of anyone, religious or otherwise, who ever claimed that an hypotheses created this world or the like »
I do, Yuyutsu, including yourself – but I respect your belief that God is not just a hypothesis but an “established” fact (even if only in your mind).

You also wrote :

« Existence is for things … »

I don’t know where you got that idea, Yuyutsu. You did not indicate your source. The OED defines existence as « the fact or state of living or having objective reality ». It is not limited to things.

It does not apply to any God or Gods because the concept “God” is not instantiated. The objective reality of a God or Gods has never been indisputably established. Perhaps it will be sometime in the future. But, in the meantime, it is simply a concept, a proposition or a hypothesis – which, for various personal and/or socio-cultural reasons, some people are more disposed to accept than others.

That said, Yuyutsu, I am aware that the notion of existence poses a problem for philosophers in terms of language, metaphysics, and logic. So, as there is no general consensus on the matter among the philosophers, the OED stands as the only conventional authority in the English language on the sense, meaning, interpretation and application of the word.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 8:13:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

I have just noticed your long post on page 14 of this thread but, unfortunately, do not have time to respond to it now. You might like to read the response I just posted to Yuyutsu which, I think, partly covers some of the points you raise. I’ll try to get back to you again tomorrow.

The following is a response to your post on the bottom of page 13 of this thread :

Thank you for trying to clarify your position a little further.

I understand, as you do, that the 1st law of thermodynamics has not been disproven by the successful creation of matter from nothing (a quantum vacuum) by the team of 20 American physicists in 1997, as I related in a previous post.

However, I find your extrapolation of the principle of the 1st law of thermodynamics throughout eternity – without beginning or end – somewhat hazardous, to say the least. That would require a vision, knowledge and comprehension of past and future cosmological phenomena far in excess of our present-day capabilities. We have only just begun to scratch the surface of how matter is created. We still have a long way to go in understanding how and when universe was formed and developed.

I, personally, am not inclined to cede to the temptation of the simple “God-of-the-gaps” explanation that so many of our forefathers have satisfied themselves with all too often in the past – sometimes with dramatic consequences. I prefer to place my faith in the capacity of mankind to continue to make progress in our understanding of the universe through scientific effort.

Stephen Hawking, who is well known for his work in this field, has given a series of lectures, two of which are pertinent to our discussions. He evokes a few avenues of reflection worth exploring which I find interesting.

I submit them here for your consideration :

1. « The Beginning of Time (1996) »
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

2. « The Origin of the Universe (2005) »
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 8:29:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For an hypothesised god a beginning is sufficient but not necessary.
Hypothetical Creation by its definition is not made by a created entity. A car-maker does not need horse-shoes on his hooves . Hypothetically the Creator made time , field and pre-existence. Hawking said time reverses , then back-tracked and said it doesn't.
This is creative and god-like , he lived in a black-hole and had time to spare. Logically the hypothetical god could also start at the beginning then cancel the start and re-start earlier . Buddha was onto something.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 9:29:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo, Not_Now.S,

Perhaps this link

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-managed-to-manipulate-pure-nothingness

might make you think twice before identifying the philosophical [or common sense] meaning of “nothing” with quantum vacuum with its fluctuations that physicists now try to manipulate. Whatever they will come about with, I do not think they will claim having created matter out of nothing. “God created the world from nothing” or “God exists” are statements in the language of philosophy (theology) where the terms have each a meaning that cannot be explained as terms or statements from within science. So seeking scientifiv evidence for these philosophical positions that can convince everybody (like proofs in mathematics) is futile and naive. “Nothing” in philosophical sense means absence of anything, and quantum vacuum that can fluctuate and be manipulated is certainly “anything”. [”Noting” in common sense is meant e.g. when I say there is nothing in my wallet.]

It is like looking for ansewrs in the theory of topological spaces when your problem concerns you living space, or vice versa, looking for solution to problems in the theory of topological space by looking at your personal experiance with your living space.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 9:47:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

According to the OED, 'Hypothesis'="A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

Now I really don't know anyone who believes that a supposition of the above kind created the world, controls it, plays any major part in its running and/or is worthy of worship. Do you?

«but I respect your belief that God is not just a hypothesis but an “established” fact»

While I do not believe God to be an hypotheses, I do not believe God to be a fact either (established or otherwise). Further, had God been a fact, then He/She/It would not be worthy of worship.

Since you object the use of "things", you may simply replace "thing(s)" by "object(s) in my earlier statement: "Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing".

«The objective reality of a God or Gods has never been indisputably established. Perhaps it will be sometime in the future.»

Well I am convinced that this will never happen because God is not an object. Should I be wrong, then that object which people ironically call 'God', should never be sought or worshipped.

Actually we seem to have no argument - don't you share those same convictions with me, that:
1) No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established.
2) Had such a reality been nevertheless established, then the reality in question would not be worthy of worship.

?

---

Dear George,

Thank you for this beautiful clarification.

The Upanishads describe space as the subtlest material from which grosser materials emerged, in this order: air (nothing to do with the vaporised particles that we breathe), fire (nothing to do with chemical oxidisation), water (which modern science identifies as energy) and earth (which modern science identifies as particled matter).

What modern science terms "quantum vacuum" may one day be identified as what the ancients referred to as "space", "air" or "fire" (one of the three). The absence of energy and particles does not imply the absence of subtler matter.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 October 2018 4:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading these posts, I get the feeling "God_is>Google" www.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 5:35:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//"Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing".//

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic."
- 'Well That About Wraps It Up For God' by Oolon Colluphid
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 6:13:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Indeed, the “nothing” I was referring to was the nothing in a quantum vacuum :

« a state devoid of ordinary matter in which virtual particle–antiparticle pairs are continually created and annihilated through quantum fluctuations »

Here is a brief résumé of how the team of 20 American physicists created matter out of that “state devoid of ordinary matter” in 1997 :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

Here is a résumé of another research paper by physicists of the University of California, Los Angeles, published in 2005, which provides a possible explanation of how the matter of the universe was created :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132255.htm

Then there is the résumé in Science Alert for which you kindly posted a link regarding research carried out in 2015 by a team led by Alfred Leitenstorfer from the University of Konstanz in Germany.

What all this adds up to is that a number of physicists around the world are actively seeking to solve the mystery of how the universe was created.

It’s not going to happen overnight and probably not in my lifetime or even in that of my children or grandchildren, but I am confident we will get there in the end. As I indicated in my most recent post to Not_Now.Soon, we have only just begun to scratch the surface. We have a long, long way to go.

As it seems that human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago, it has taken us 13 million years to get to where we are today. Can you imagine what we’ll know about the universe and our origins in another 13 million years’ time ?

The total life span of humans on planet earth having been estimated at roughly 1.5 billion years, that will still leave us with 1.474 billion years to reap the benefit of our knowledge and, hopefully, put it to good use.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 8:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Now I really don't know anyone who believes that a supposition of the above kind created the world, controls it, plays any major part in its running and/or is worthy of worship. Do you? »

Yes, I know quite a lot of people who believe that. In addition, I understand that approx. 51% of the world population believe it, i.e., about 3.93 billion people, in 2018 – and I have the impression that you are one of them, Yuyutsu – but please correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I can ascertain form your posts on this forum, you are not an atheist, an agnostic or an ordinary person such as myself. You constantly state that your objective is to get closer to God and to worship him. I interpret that to mean that you believe in some version or other of God that you indicated on a previous thread, you are unable to define.

And as it has never been indisputably established that there is such a God, I consider that you believe in a hypothetical God. In doing so, I do not mean that to be in any way disparaging, but simply the most appropriate manner to describe the situation. So, please do not be offended.

Again, you insist : "Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing". Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate the source of that definition as it is certainly not the usual definition in the English language as I pointed out in my previous post to you (cf. the OED definition).

Existence is not limited to things or objects. It designates each and all that is.

You ask if I share your conviction that :

1) No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established.

2) Had such a reality been nevertheless established, then the reality in question would not be worthy of worship.

My reply is :

1) I don’t share that conviction

2) I never worship whatever the circumstances

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:18:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that the English word for “the subtlest material …” mentioned in the Upanishads is “space”, which in physics is different from what is understood by quantum vacuum. However, I think “the subtlest material from which grosser materials emerged” might indeed be retrospectively seen as what in QF is referred to as quantum vacuum and its fluctuations.

Dear Banjo,

Your quote describing quantum vacuum shows indeed that it is far from NOTHING in the sense of absence of anything.I cannot say more about this assumed state of the physical universe since I am not familiar with (and would probably not understand) the physics and mathematics necessary for critical assessment of available results.

If a physicist, or anybody, tries to answer the philosophical question “why there is something rather than nothing” from within physics, then it simply means he/she does not understand the question. Physicists who “are actively seeking to solve the mystery of how the universe was created” seek to explain how one physical state (e.g. quantum vacuum) changes into another. Similarly, you can seek to explain how waves on a lake were created (a pebble was thrown in). Creation in this sense has nothing to do with creation religion, or e.g. NNS, are talking about. Creation in the religious sense refers to the raison d'etre of everything, including the framework (space-time, mathematics etc) within which the physicist is doing his seeking.

There are philosophically unsophisticated believers who think they can prove God’s existence from within science, and there are philosophically unsophisticated unbelievers who think science can support their unbelief.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 9:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

While I aspire to be worthy of the description "religious", according to the narrow and technical OED definition, whatever be its worth: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods", you should classify my person as an atheist, not even an agnostic like yourself, because you do not share my belief (and as I understand it, George's too) that "No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established".

So you do not share my first conviction, but you seem to share my second, that anything that can be objectively verified is not worthy of worship (that you also choose not to worship at all, is a separate issue). This is good, though Not_Now.Soon wouldn't agree with us.

Regarding the word "thing", I already reiterated my statement: "Existence is for objects: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just an object". To provide some context, respectable ladies often complain: "Stop treating me like an object", in other words, "I am someone, not some-thing": a true gentleman wouldn't treat a lady as an object, so I am surprised why Not_Now.Soon, undoubtedly a lover of God, would struggle to treat God as an object - only objects can be proven objectively to exist!

Regarding the odd idea that "a supposition created the world", you seem to commit a logical error: Suppose a child believes that there is a lion in their yard, in fact it's only a kitten but the child does not know it, so they believe that if they leave the house, that lion would eat them - Perhaps there are, but I personally don't know any child who believes that "If I leave the house, a kitten will eat me", nor an adult who believes that "a supposition created the world". Likewise, I don't know of anyone who worships a supposition/hypothesis.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 4:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I am impressed with your reply to Banjo.

The subtlest matter mentioned in the Upanishads is Space ('Akasha'), but I have not concluded that Quantum-Vacuum and Akasha are necessarily identical, that is because between Akasha and energy there are yet another two elements, grosser than Akasha but subtler than energy, called Air ('Vayu') and Fire ('Agni'), so I am not knowledgeable enough to tell which of the three is equivalent to Quantum-Vacuum.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 3 October 2018 4:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Your quote describing quantum vacuum shows indeed that it is far from NOTHING in the sense of absence of anything »
.

Well, … not all that far, George.

Nothing, of course means no thing, and anything means any thing.

It is, however, interesting to note that, according to the OED :

"Thing" means an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.

And "object" is defined as :

1. A material thing that can be seen and touched

2. (Philosophy) A thing external to the thinking mind or subject

You also wrote :

« If a physicist, or anybody, tries to answer the philosophical question “why there is something rather than nothing” from within physics, then it simply means he/she does not understand the question »

Perhaps the reason he or she does not understand is that it is only half the question, the other half being “why there is nothing rather than something”. Both something and nothing co-exist in the universe and seem to be complementary, each, perhaps, dependant on the other for its existence – the quantum vacuum being a prime example. It is neither completely nothing nor completely something but partly both at the same time – if it weren’t, perhaps there would be no such “thing” as a quantum vacuum.

However, unless I am mistaken, there is more of nothing than there is of something in a quantum vacuum – just as there is in the universe.

You observe :

« There are philosophically unsophisticated believers who think they can prove God’s existence from within science, and there are philosophically unsophisticated unbelievers who think science can support their unbelief »

I consider that research relating to the existence or non-existence of God is essentially the domain of the neuroscientists (or neurobiologists) working in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and, perhaps, other specialists as need be.

It is certainly not the domain of physicists involved in research relating to the origins of the universe.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 4 October 2018 2:06:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

On God, atheists, agnostics and worship :

I consider that there is no God until “proven” otherwise – which I don’t rule out. That does not make me an agnostic – defined by the OED as :

« A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God »

I reject the appellation “atheist” because I think it’s silly (if not stupid) defining myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I am neither believer, agnostic, nor atheist. I am just an ordinary person.

You wrote :

« Regarding the word "thing", I already reiterated my statement: "Existence is for objects … »

That’s not the commonly accepted definition of existence Yuyutsu. Once again, please quote the source of your definition. If it is your own invention, why did you decide to limit it to things or objects ? If you don’t like it, don’t do that.

Regarding your story of the child, the adults and what they all believe is a lion in the yard – but which, in fact, is only a kitten :

The problem is that they are all absolutely convinced it is a lion. At no point do they realise it is only a kitten. In their minds, there is no doubt whatsoever, it really is a lion. There is nothing anybody can say or do to persuade them that it is only a kitten.

So to avoid them all being eaten by what they are absolutely convinced is a lion, they decide to sacrifice their only child by killing him or her painlessly with drugs and offering him/her to the lion so that the rest of them can escape safely from the house.

They run out onto the street without looking back and never return. They live the rest of their lives peacefully and, one by one, die of old age – never realising it was only a kitten.

That is the end of the story of the kitten they all firmly believed was a lion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 4 October 2018 2:19:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reverse entropy is a paper tiger but science needs faith when it sees entropy.
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 4 October 2018 7:01:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Apple dictionary (New Oxford American/British Oxford) with the two meanings of “nothing”:
NOTHING
pronoun
not anything; no single thing: I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

(None of the three examples refers to “objects”.)

I think you just confirmed that you did not understand the question “why there is something rather than nothing” asked by philosophers (e.g. Leibniz).

I also think that whoever does “research relating to the existence or non-existence of God” is neither a scientist nor a philosopher but a person with a childish understanding of God. [Similarly as in: physicists do not do research relating to the existence or non-existence of gravitation, they look for theories (Newtonian, Einsteinian, etc models) to explain (and predict) its effects on matter.]

You can seek, ignore, deny God in your life, but you cannot do (scienific) research on His existence.
Posted by George, Thursday, 4 October 2018 8:39:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

I apologise for not getting back to you earlier. Still, better late than never, I suppose. Here is my response to your long post on page 14 of this thread :

You wrote :

« I'm glad you recognize that I can call God, ,God." Instead of hypothetical or anything else. But I get the impression you'd rather I go with the other term »

No, Not_Now.Soon, as I indicated in a previous post, I respect your religious beliefs and am happy for you to continue to refer simply to “God”. But as I do not share your beliefs I trust you will be kind enough to reciprocate and accept that I continue to refer to the “hypothetical God” in which you believe.

« … my current hypothesis … isn't about God but about people … they don't seek Him … or they do and they find Him »

I grew up in a bush town in the Queensland outback. The only people I could have an intelligent conversation with were young ministers (priests) of the Bush Brotherhood. I spent long hours late in the evenings discussing theology and philosophy with them. I was christened and confirmed in the Church of England (Anglican Church) and I served for many years as an altar boy. Two of them became my best friends. One died in a car accident and the other one is still one of my best friends. He was my religious instruction teacher at primary school. He later became the Archbishop of Melbourne and served for ten years as the primate of the Anglican Church in Australia. He is now retired but retains the title of bishop and lives in Adelaide. As I live in Paris, we continue to communicate by e-mail.

I have known him since I was ten years old. At the age of fifteen I had still not decided whether I should believe in God or not, but no longer had time to consecrate to the question. I decided to leave it in abeyance until I did.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 4 October 2018 8:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

That time came 44 years later. I took up my research once again and in a little less than a year, finally managed to understand how the concept of God became deeply ingrained in the mind of primeval man, germinating, developing, constantly evolving and adapting to the vision and culture of an increasingly civilised and knowledgeable society.

It was a long process, spanning the best part of half a century but the final realisation came to me with such force and clarity that it surprised me. I felt a surge of exhilaration that I had never felt in my life before. I experienced what I can only describe as a revelation.

All these years I had more or less expected that at the end of my research, I would, as you say, eventually “find God”. Instead, I found exactly the contrary.

It is now crystal clear to me that God is no more than a simple hypothesis, until proven otherwise – but my mind remains open.

It does not prevent my good friend, the retired bishop in Adelaide, and myself from continuing to debate matters of religion as usual – though he probably would have liked me to follow in his footsteps.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for your response, but it's getting late. I think I'll go to bed and try to get back to you tomorrow.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 4 October 2018 10:17:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«I consider that there is no God until “proven” otherwise – which I don’t rule out.»

Funny. So at the moment there is no God (yet), but possibly in future someone may "prove" God and then they would have created God...
Unlike you, I do rule out the possibility of that happening!

«I reject the appellation “atheist” because I think it’s silly (if not stupid) defining myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.»

I think it's silly to attempt the impossible task of defining oneself, but rather, we were just playing with OED definitions and trying to match our person with them. That being the case, silly as that game may be, my person matches the "atheist" definition while yours matches the "agnostic" definition.


«That’s not the commonly accepted definition of existence Yuyutsu.»

By the OED, 'existence'="The fact or state of living or having objective reality".

Whatever has an objective reality, must be an object!

God is not an object, has no objective reality, does not exist and will never be proven to exist.

Sorry to spoil you revelation, but this means that God is not an hypothesis either, because God does not exist while hypotheses do.

«They run out onto the street without looking back and never return. They live the rest of their lives peacefully and, one by one, die of old age – never realising it was only a kitten.»

Outside in the yard was only a kitten, but inside was the lion, so as they ran out onto the street, the lion was now roaming about. They tried to run away, but no matter where they went, they could not escape the lion because, without realising it, THEY WERE the lion!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 4 October 2018 1:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo. I have to have some more time to read the full articles you referenced from Sam Harris. But if you can say which points in the articles that you liked or are drawn to that might help also.

Thank you for sharing your experience with searching for God. That is something for me to consider, but I don't understand why I could find Him and you could not.

For me my experience searching for God starts as a kid. More then once there was a confirmation that God exists by a reaction to a prayer. A few even as a reaction that He cares for me. As I grew up, there were a few more things that happened and I felt like we had a relationship of some sort or another. Like God was a friend. (Something I neglected probably too often, but I was a kid). Then later as a young adult I had a breakup that tore me apart. I distanced myself from everyone. Friends, parents, God. Anything that I thought was worth protecting, I distanced myself from, because I wasn't getting over the break up and I didn't want them to distance themselves from me because of that. With God, I distanced myself because I lost hope, prayed and got encouraged then lost hope even more.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 5 October 2018 3:56:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

I stopped trying to find hope only to lose it and just deal with the storm inside of me. That was a mistake I'm sure. But it did stop me from trying to chase dreams of winning the girl back any time I felt better. After I got through that though, I worried if I lost my relationship with God. I spent a little time trying to reconnect with God. Through study, through prayer, through trying to understand differing Christian perspectives in hopes they held an answer. It wasn't a constant search but it was ongoing. Eventually, after a few years (2 or 3) I got a feeling I hadn't had for a long time in response to a prayer. It was a meaningful moment for me. He still listens and I'm not lost because of a hardship I blew out of proportion. I still worry I lost something I had as a kid and as a teen with my closeness to God. But I'm not worried anymore that I lost Him.

Based on these experiences there's a few hypotheses I wonder about. One is if it's harder to find God as an adult then it is to find Him as a child. If that's true then maybe it's because of distractions of life. Work, fun, family and friends, and trying to juggle all of that and any other worries. Or maybe it's that we're already exposed to differing philosophies that keep us from sincerely looking for God, or from following His teachings. A second consideration is thinking that our neglect from following Him might get in the way of finding Him, regardless of being a child or an adult. (Though I don't think this is as strong a likelihood anymore. While looking into it though I've tried to look at teachings and put them into a practical understanding so they are practiced instead of just known).

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 5 October 2018 4:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

A third thought is that God might show Himself because of our concern or our love for others. This relates specifically with the prayer that I finally felt God was near again. After so many prayers asking Him to forgive me, or to come back into my life, it was a prayer for a stranger on the street as I was driving that made me feel His love again. If the third consideration is right then there's more to searching for God then just a personal search, it should be paired also with a love for others. That or each of these hypothesizes are wrong (which is also has a high chance).

I don't know how your search or your research went when you searched for God. But I still thing that if I can find Him, so can you. Hope that's an encouragement for you or my thoughts are an encouragement to look for him again instead of waiting for the world to prove His influence in it.

Regarding the comment of God of the gaps and our conversation with science, I have more to add but it won't fit in the amount of text I can post today. I'll homely have time to post it tomorrow.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 5 October 2018 4:04:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Tony Lavis. I respect experiences more then I respect philosophies. Although I would hear out a person who says they follow the Tao, and consider it based on the merit I think it holds. But if they have an experience with the Tao. (Has anyone experienced the Tao? Or is it a way of viewing and understanding the world?). If they have an experience with something called the Tao, I would consider it with a greater level of respect to take into it's account.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 5 October 2018 4:05:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I respect experiences more then I respect philosophies.//

I have to wonder to what extent that is true. Would you respect Scientologists who claim to have experienced the super-human abilities that supposedly come with attaining a high 'operating thetan' level?

What about people who claim to have experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 5 October 2018 7:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

The online Apple dictionary you cited requires a paying subscription to consult it. I consulted another reputable American dictionary, the Merriam-Webster.

It defines “nothing” as :

« not any thing : no thing »

It defines “thing” as :

« an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated »

And “object” as :

« something material that may be perceived by the senses »

Here is the link :

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothing

You remark :

« I think you just confirmed that you did not understand the question “why there is something rather than nothing” … »

I took it on its face value as a simple, straight forward question to which I replied in the same vein. I think we know that “something” exists because it is different from “nothing” which also exists. Both exist, perhaps, inextricably and interdependently.

But Leibniz is only looking at one side of the coin when he asks that question. On the other side is “why there is nothing rather than something ?”

Leibniz replied to his own question :

« The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." »

Leibniz was a “philosophical theist”. His philosophy served his faith. If there was a hidden message, it was not in the question, it was in his reply. It is not difficult to imagine who he was alluding to as the “necessary being”.

I, personally, am not inclined to cede to the temptation of Leibniz’s simple “God-of-the-gaps” explanation of “why there is something rather than nothing”.

You note :

« physicists do not do research relating to the existence … of gravitation »

Of course not. Unlike the existence of God, nobody questions the existence of gravitation. Physicists simply try to explain the phenomenon.

« You can seek … God … but you cannot do (scientific) research on His existence »

Neuroscientists research how people have religious experiences linked to belief in the existence of God :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_religion

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2005/PSCF9-05Jeeves.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10914137/What-God-does-to-your-brain.html

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 5 October 2018 7:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.
You wrote :

« So at the moment there is no God (yet), but possibly in future someone may "prove" God and then they would have created God... »

If someone manages to prove that the God hypothesis is true does not mean that he/she created God – just as proving that a cockatoo is white does not mean that you created a white cockatoo.

« I think it's silly to attempt the impossible task of defining oneself … »

For me, it’s easy. I’m just an ordinary person.

« Whatever has an objective reality, must be an object! »

“Objective” means (OED) :

1. (Of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

2. Not dependent on the mind for existence

It has nothing to do with “objects”.

« God is not an hypothesis either, because God does not exist while hypotheses do »

There is no proof that God does not exist and there is no proof that he does exist. There is only a hypothesis that he does exist. Some people consider that hypothesis to be true. I don’t – until proof to the contrary.

« They tried to run away, but no matter where they went, they could not escape the lion because, without realising it, THEY WERE the lion! »

And they all ate each other – "an give de udder udder to me udder brudder" said the kitten !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 5 October 2018 8:51:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

The way you reworded it now makes sense:
"{Some people consider that hypothesis to be true. I don’t} – until proof to the contrary.",
as opposed to your previous claim, which I read:
"I consider that {there is no God until “proven” otherwise}".

Myself, I firmly believe that no proof to the contrary can ever be made - since proofs can only depend on objective evidence while God could not possibly exist (or "have an objective reality", according to the OED) because the assertion of God's existence both belittles Him as well as leads to numerous paradoxes.

«There is no proof that God does not exist»

Actually there are many and we proved this in primary school: Had God existed, then He could do anything, including to create a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift, but then He could not lift it... contradiction!

Yes we ought to have faith in God, worship and love Him with all our heart, mind and resources, but to believe that He exists is a misinterpretation of scriptures.

«There is only a hypothesis that he does exist.»

So you agree that this hypothesis exists, right?
While God, according to your own view, probably does not exist (until/unless proven).

Well nothing can simultaneously exist and "probably not exist", which proves that God is not an hypothesis!

«For me, it’s easy. I’m just an ordinary person.»

This describes your personality, rather than yourself, who has that personality.

Yes, it is possible for personalities to escape all three OED definitions ("theist", "atheist", "agnostic"), but your above statement ("some people... to the contrary") seems to match the "agnostic" description. To escape all definitions, you should probably not think of God at all.

«And they all ate each other – "an give de udder udder to me udder brudder" said the kitten !»

They tried to eat each other, but they could only catch their own tail because they all were one and the same lion!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 5 October 2018 1:24:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Merriam-Wbster:

Definition of nothing (Entry 1 of 4)
1
: not any thing : no thing
leaves nothing to the imagination

Again, no mention of objects.

>>« The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." »<<

Your quote comes from “G.W. Leibniz - The Priniple of Sufficient Reason and his Argument for the Existence of God” (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/leibniz.html) and shows that Leibniz’s answer to the question was, indeed, God and not something science can research.

“Long ago, Leibniz objected to gaps of the first kind after Newton suggested (erroneously, as the religious skeptic Laplace later showed) that planetary orbits would be unstable unless God intervened regularly to repair them.” (http://https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF3-09Larson.pdf)

So Leibniz does not seem to have seen God as sunk in the gaps of scientific understanding of the material world.

>>Unlike the existence of God, nobody questions the existence of gravitation.<<

Nobody questioned the existence - in the Western, not Oriental meaning of the word that Yuyutsu has in mind - of God in e.g. medieval times, when nobody had the need to postulate, gravitation in order to ask questions nobody asked. I agree, today it is almost the other way around. And who knows how it will be seen in thousands of years.

Of course, I agree that “neuroscientists research how people have religious experiences linked to belief ”. Some of these specialists believe in God themselves (e.g. Andrew B. Newberg, claiming that humans seek God because our brains are biologically programmed to do so - http://https://www.amazon.de/Why-God-Wont-Go-Away-ebook/dp/B001NJUP7U/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538696693&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=newberg%252C+why+god+want+go+away) some, most of them, not.

This is not the same as doing “research on the existence or not” of God. Like neuroscientists can study the brain of a mathematician working on the proof of a theorem, without being able to say whether or not he correctly proved his theorem (i.e. established its “existence” outside the mathematician’s imagination) he claims to have.
Posted by George, Friday, 5 October 2018 5:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Thank you for reciprocating with your personal story.

It corresponds to my understanding of the notion of God and the importance it takes in the minds of all those who become ardent believers. While I am personally convinced that God does not exist (until proven otherwise), I am just as equally convinced that the idea of God is so real in their minds that they can literally feel his presence. There is no doubt whatsoever in their minds that he exists.

How many times have I heard people say “God heard my prayers” or “God saved me” as, for example, when victims are miraculously extracted from tons of concrete and rubble after a natural disaster, sometimes long after the rescue operations were officially abandoned and all hope was lost. And how often have I heard those victims attribute their remarkable survival and ultimate rescue to their unwavering faith in God.

Effectively, it was their faith that helped them to wait patiently in the assurance that, somehow, they would be saved. It protected them from panic, stress, fear, anguish, despair and depression. It gave them strength to resist pain, discomfort, heat, cold, claustrophobia, isolation, thirst and hunger. It helped them support their dirty, suffocating prisons, for ten, twelve, even as much as fifteen days, in some cases, never knowing whether it was day or night.

It was their faith that helped them survive, not God. It was a team of trained and experienced rescue operators, not religion, that extracted them from under those tons of concrete and rubble. It was invariably their loved ones, family and friends, who never lost hope and never gave up the search.

By their faith they were saved (Acts 16:31).

That is my honest opinion. That is my belief. There is no God. There is just the comfort of the idea, the concept of God, deeply imbedded and firmly entrenched in the minds of those individuals (and they are legion) who would have great difficulty facing the vicissitudes of daily life without him :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=171skzi5BKc

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:05:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dera Banjo,

>> It was their faith that helped them survive, not God. It was a team of trained and experienced rescue operators, not religion, …” <<

Compare this with a similar situatuiin whre even you will agree that the "driver" is more deserving your gratiture than the "vehicle":

It is thre TAXI-driver (and engineers who built the cab) whom you should pay and thank for bringing you to your destiny, AND NOT the TAXI-cab or the machinery that manufactured it.
Posted by George, Saturday, 6 October 2018 9:41:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … we ought to have faith in God, worship and love Him with all our heart, mind and resources … »

In my opinion, any “God” who expects anybody to worship him is not a God. He is a narcissist. And anybody who worships a God who does not expect to be worshiped is, in my opinion, a hypocritical sycophant or a meek, despicable worm.

I can’t imagine any honest, honourable person acting in that fashion.
.

« … nothing can simultaneously exist and "probably not exist" … »

Probability is not certainty. “It will probably rain tomorrow” does not mean that it will necessarily rain tomorrow. It simply means that there is more chance that it will rain than there is that it will not rain (> 50% chance that it will rain). Perhaps it will not rain at all.

“God probably does not exist” does not exclude the possibility that he does exist. God can simultaneously exist and “probably not exist”. I consider that the probability that he does not exist is about 99.9%, and that there is a very slight possibility (0.1%) that he does exist.
.

I indicated that “I’m just an ordinary person” and you replied :

« This describes your personality, rather than yourself, who has that personality »

By describing myself as an “ordinary person” I am indicating an essential feature of my identity – just as my DNA is also an essential feature of my identity.
.

« To escape all definitions, you should probably not think of God at all »

About 13 million years ago, human and chimpanzees’ genes split. That was the beginning of primeval man. He had not yet invented any religion or concept of God. He was just an ordinary person. That’s how I see myself today.

I listen to what other people have to say and discuss whatever preoccupations they may happen to have. But I’m not the sort of person who allows himself to be overly impressed by other people’s imagination, however fertile it may be.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 6 October 2018 10:56:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for sharing yours as well Banjo. The one thing I can add though is not just feeling a presence, but also just something besides themself there. Either something like a peace fall on them when moments ago they were falling into panic, or a force help them that they can't take credit for. A kind of otherness that takes place, outside of just trusting that everything will be ok and helping people cope. (Though that is pretty good on it's own too). This is why I like to hear people's experiences. Because it usually challenges our views of how things work or how they should work.

As for the God of the gaps. I don't think of God as an explanation to fill in where science has holes. I think that science is good for learning and understanding the world around us. But it's not the authority of how the world works. Instead of God filling in the gaps of our understanding, my hope is that science will continue to learn and finally catch up to what's said in the bible. Realize a truth that God has given us, and be able to explain why it's true. As of now, there are things in the bible that are believed and trusted long before there's an explanation to give it merit from understanding it better, or from study, or from experience. Yet they are trusted because God is trustworthy. My hope for different scientific fields is that they will one day catch up with what God already taught.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 6 October 2018 5:37:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

However, sometimes it takes a while for science to catch up with things already known. Several years ago there was a scientific study about discovering something I thought was common sense. A nature article explaining that animals morn the loss of a loved one. First about a mother in a herd staying behind for a while to stay with a calf that died, before catching up to the rest of the herd, and a second of an ape silent and distant from other apes after another ape he was chatty with died. At the time the article made it out like this was a great scientific discovery about animals, but anyone who's owned pets would say it's common sense.

Regarding the first law of Thermodynamics, I agree we don't know the limits of that observation. I don't know of any experiments that have countered the rule, but that doesn't mean in vastly different conditions there would be vastly different results.

Moving onto another law. The second law of Thermodynamics has a good amount of observations to strengthen that perspective. However, the fact that Earth has life on it at all and any study on how complex life is (either as a study on an individual anatomy, or a study on an ecosystem), then that alone is a big counter to the idea that the longer the timespan the greater the entropy. We should not have had the chance to be born if that was the case. With this in mind some of scientific philosophy and understanding can just be wrong, which is again why I count God as the authority. Hopefully one day more fields of science will catch up with what's already in the bible.

(Sorry if that sounds close to the god of the gaps reference. I think scientific inquiry is important for the same reasons why experience and life stories are important. Because even if we don't have an explanation for why things happen, both science observations and life's observations challenge us from just philosophizing our answers and being wrong about them more then enough times).
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 6 October 2018 5:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Definition of nothing … : not any thing : no thing … Again, no mention of objects »

That’s correct, George. It mentions “thing”. Would you kindly indicate your definition of “thing” ?
.

« So Leibniz does not seem to have seen God as sunk in the gaps of scientific understanding of the material world »

No, not on that occasion.
.

« This is not the same as doing “research on the existence or not” of God. Like neuroscientists can study the brain of a mathematician … »

Agreed. All it could do is provide a possible explanation of why some people believe in the existence of God.
.

You quoted me :

"It was their faith that helped them survive, not God. It was a team of trained and experienced rescue operators, not religion, …”

And you commented :

« Compare this with a similar situation where even you will agree that the "driver" is more deserving your gratitude than the "vehicle": It is the TAXI-driver (and engineers who built the cab) whom you should pay and thank for bringing you to your destiny, AND NOT the TAXI-cab or the machinery that manufactured it »

Yes, I always pay and thank the taxi-driver. In doing so, no doubt, built into the amount I pay him/her, a part goes to paying the cost of the taxi-cab and the machinery that manufactured it. By the same token, a part of my expression of gratitude may be considered as including the people who built the cab and the machinery that manufactured it.

But that’s not all. As I indicated in my post to Not_Now.Soon (to which your comments refer) : “It was invariably their [the victims’] loved ones, family and friends, who never lost hope and never gave up the search, long after the rescue operations were officially abandoned”. It was principally due to their tenacity and untiring efforts that the miracles operated.

In such dramatic events, it’s faith and love that work miracles, not God or religion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 6 October 2018 11:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«In my opinion, any “God” who expects anybody to worship him is not a God.»

I agree.

«And anybody who worships a God who does not expect to be worshiped is, in my opinion, a hypocritical sycophant or a meek, despicable worm.»

I do, for one.

I wonder what you think about someone who loves another for no rational reason, where they have nothing to gain for it - they must be total idiots, right?

Everyone worships something - this is human nature, it could be money or power or beauty, youth, celebrities and much more. Worshipping material things sinks you deeper into the mire of this world, while worshipping God purifies your heart and helps you out of it. Even if you deny the spiritual, nothing is more therapeutic than worshipping God because it distracts you from and breaks your habit of worshipping the things of the world.

God does not care, but as Archimedes observed, to lift the earth you need a fulcrum outside it.

«Probability is not certainty.»

You missed the point: If you consider X to exist and Y to "probably not exist", then you acknowledge that X and Y are different. That hypotheses ("God exists") clearly exists and you think that "God probably does not exist", hence you do not seriously believe that God is an hypotheses.

«By describing myself as an “ordinary person” I am indicating an essential feature of my identity»

Exactly. Because you identify yourself as a person, you are inclined to describe yourself with the attributes of the person that you identify with. However, you are not a person, you only for the time being identify with one.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:14:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Sorry, I overlooked the space in “any thing”. For the MW definition of thing, see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thing . Whether with space or without, “it is nearly always better to use anything” (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-anything-and-any-thing).

If you wish to investigate the meaning of NOTHING in philosophy, you can read the 1537 documents listed here: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=nothing. (Sorry, I could not resist the temptation (:-).

>> In such dramatic events, it’s faith and love that work miracles, not God or religion.<<

We are coming full circle. My reference to the taxi driver (or, if you prefer, “it is not the hammer that nailed in the nail but the craftsman”) was to indicate that for NNS God (who drives his faith) is as real as for you, and everybody, the taxi driver (or the craftsman). If you mean that science cannot see (establish) this transcendental Driver then, of course, you are right.

By the way, the above linked to Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy contains also 901 articles dealing with the concept of God.
Posted by George, Sunday, 7 October 2018 12:29:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//However, the fact that Earth has life on it at all and any study on how complex life is (either as a study on an individual anatomy, or a study on an ecosystem), then that alone is a big counter to the idea that the longer the timespan the greater the entropy. We should not have had the chance to be born if that was the case. With this in mind some of scientific philosophy and understanding can just be wrong//

Yep; in this case, it's your scientific understanding that's just wrong. The 2nd Law applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. Which Earth is not, because it has a constant input of energy from the Sun. That energy supply allows an decrease in entropy.

Consider the case of an air conditioned room within a house. The house will be in a much higher state of entropy when the room and the rest of the house have achieved thermal equilibrium than when they are at different temperatures. Without the the air-conditioner switched on, the 2nd Law dictates that the whole system will move towards that higher entropy state, and the room and the house will end up at the same temperature, a sort of 'heat-death' for the limited case we're considering.

But when you switch the air-con on and start adding energy from an external source, you can reverse the normal flow of heat from hot to cold: the air-con removes heat from the colder part of the house and adds it to the warmer part - an obvious decrease in entropy, but fully consistent with the 2nd Law because the air-con adds energy to the system. And that is exactly what the Sun does for the Earth. Just think of it as big entropy decreasing machine, like an over-sized air-conditioner, if that helps.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 7 October 2018 6:03:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

The fact that science still has a lot to learn goes without saying – but, at least it continues to progress, generation after generation.

Whereas the bible, indisputably a literary and cultural treasure, has remained static – ever since it was written two thousand years ago – and become ossified.

Its value today is more of an historic than of an authoritative nature. Its essence has long been integrated into our laws and lore and continues to irrigate them.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Love and worship are totally different. As Bertrand Russell might say : love is wise; worship is foolish.

If, as you declare, “everyone worships something” then everybody would be foolish – but, happily, that is not the case. Some people are foolish, but I think most are wise.
.

« That hypothesis ("God exists") clearly exists and you think that "God probably does not exist", hence you do not seriously believe that God is an hypothesis »

God is a hypothesis that some people believe to be true. I don’t.
.
« … you are not a person, you only for the time being identify with one »

Like everybody else on earth, I live every day of my life in the present. I can never live in the past, nor in the future. I remain a prisoner of the present as long as I live.

From the cradle to the grave, I shall be an ordinary person. At my death I shall become an ordinary person of the past – for the rest of eternity.

.

Dear George,

.

It’s nice to see that with ample explanation we seem to agree on just about everything – each respecting the other’s irreconcilable beliefs and disbeliefs.

I find that very satisfying.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 7 October 2018 8:57:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«love is wise; worship is foolish.»

Worship is an expression of love, consisting of the worshipper focusing their attention, through both their senses and their organs of action on their beloved.

When you love, you only want to see your beloved, to hear your beloved's voice, to smell them, to feel them, to touch them, to serve them and to always think of them alone - and even if you cannot actually serve them, you imagine your best that you are.

If you cannot see that love and worship are the same, then perhaps you were never truly in love.

And yes, some consider it foolish, but the lover doesn't care!



«God is a hypothesis that some people believe to be true. I don’t.»

You still don't get it!

That hypothesis (which some people believe to be true), which you claim is God, DOES EXIST, regardless whether its content is true or otherwise. Suffice that even one person on earth truly asserts that God exists, to make that hypothesis exist, so it would be very unusual for anyone to deny that fact, implying that all those people (including here in this forum) who hypothesise about God are simply lying and do not truly make any such assertions. It is fair to say that God does not exist (I say so too), but it is a fact that all hypotheses about God do exist, hence God is not an hypothesis.



«From the cradle to the grave, I shall be an ordinary person.»

You are who you are and there is no way you or anyone or anything can change that so you become someone else: that includes the death of the person whom you currently adopt.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 7 October 2018 10:28:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Worship is an expression of love, consisting of the worshipper focusing their attention, through both their senses and their organs of action on their beloved »
.

I beg to differ, Yuyutsu.

The OED defines worship as :

« The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity »

It indicates no less than 25 definitions of love, the first of which is “an intense feeling of deep affection”, but that is only part of the story and, in my view, not the essential part.

The biological anthropologist, Helen Fisher, suggested that " Love may be understood as part of the survival instinct, a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species".

I, personally, like the definition of the Australian biologist, Jeremy Griffith: "unconditional selflessness". This, to me, is the essence of the word.

I also like Aristotle's definition, which was later adopted by Thomas Aquinas: "to will the good of another", though it lacks the notion of "selflessness" which, to me is an indispensable feature of "love". Perhaps it is a vestige of my Christian education, but I cannot conceive of "love" without some form of personal engagement, the "giving of oneself", an element of self-sacrifice.

Either love is or it is not and if it is not, then it has never been. In my mind, there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not.

That is not the case of worship. As I am sure you are well aware, polytheism exists. Many people around the world continue to worship several Gods as well as several different forms of the same God.

Their “focus” (to employ your term) is largely fragmented and dispersed in many different directions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

Also, history is full of conquered peoples’ forced religious conversions. Though some continued, secretly, to practice their traditional religions, many others believed that their new master’s God was superior to theirs and willingly worshiped him instead :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 7 October 2018 11:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

Commenting on my statement «God is a hypothesis that some people believe to be true. I don’t », you exclaimed :

« You still don't get it! »
.

Allow me to express it differently. There are many different theories about how the universe came about. Some are scientific, pseudo-scientific (science-fiction), mythological, fantastical, religious, etc. A fairly common theory is that it was created by a God.

Unfortunately, nobody knows for sure which of these different theories is correct. None of them has been indisputably established as the right one.

I consider that the scientific method is the most effective means of discovering the truth. Its past achievements have convinced me of this. We have learned more about the universe and ourselves through scientific effort than religion and sacred scripture have ever revealed.

Scientific theory is evolutive. Religious theory has ossified and become dogma, the dogma of faith – “principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true” (OED).

Religion has a long tradition of exercising strict control over access to knowledge through various forms of censorship and the imposition of religious dogma. Genesis 2:16–17 testifies to this.

But science has disproven important principles of religious dogma in the past and I expect it to continue to do so.

Despite this, a large proportion of humanity continues to believe in a hypothetical, or theoretical God. I do not. I place my faith in science.

In my view, religion should concentrate its efforts on its important role of assisting people cope with the vicissitudes of daily life and the anguish of the prospect of death – their own and that of their loved ones.

It has no place in attempting to explain what it does not understand itself. Also, I see no justification for maintaining the illusion of a hypothetical or theoretical God. It is disrespectful of people struggling to cope with their difficulties and existentialist angst.

It is disgraceful for religion to seek to take advantage of their misfortune in order to promote its theories and impose its dogma.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 8 October 2018 2:57:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

When you love someone, you don't expect them to be perfect or a deity, but adore them warts and all! Say for example that your rag-doll is completely dirty and torn, or say your beloved does not exist - such small details wouldn't hinder a lover at all, what's the big deal...

Love has many expressions, and so does worship. On Shri Krishna's birthday for example, we place a doll of the baby Krishna in a rocking cradle and at midnight take turns to rock him by pulling a string. This creates a warm feeling of parental love towards God.

As you say, love is selfless. It is common, though, for our thoughts and feelings to be impure and include other things and selfish motives besides love, then one might hesitate and think: "why should I bother loving and worshipping since I won't get anything in return". Following one's survival instinct is an example of an impurity - a pure lover wouldn't care whether they (and/or their genes) live or die!

Similarly, pure worship is not asking for anything in return.

«Either love is or it is not and if it is not, then it has never been. In my mind, there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not»

The sun is always out there in the sky, but at night it is obscured by the earth and at times it is obscured by clouds.

«polytheism exists. Many people around the world continue to worship several Gods as well as several different forms of the same God.»

There are no several Gods: All is God, all is one. Though some worshippers do not understand this, the "Gods" that you refer to are just gods with a small 'g', different representations of God.

«history is full of conquered peoples’ forced religious conversions.»

History is indeed full of cases where institutions that were supposed to provide religion betrayed their purpose. Such forced conversions were anything but religious.

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 8 October 2018 2:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

«There are many different theories about how the universe came about. Some are scientific, pseudo-scientific (science-fiction), mythological, fantastical, religious»

It's none of religion's business to tell you how the universe came about. If such questions bother you, then the best way to get them answered is through science: religion is there to tell you how to break free of this illusion of the world!

«A fairly common theory is that it was created by a God.»

I'm aware of it, this comes from an incorrect and logically-impossible interpretation of the bible.

Yet, if someone considers the existence of the world to be a good thing, then that theory can help in producing feelings of veneration and thankfulness towards God, which is good.

«I consider that the scientific method is the most effective means of discovering the truth.»

Science can only discover relative, objective, truth and it's indeed the best at it. For example, "If the world was real, then the earth revolves around the sun". However, the world is only an illusion.

«Religion has a long tradition of exercising strict control over access to knowledge»

Again, abuse by institutions that were supposed to provide religion was historically rife.

«In my view, religion should concentrate its efforts on its important role of assisting people cope with the vicissitudes of daily life and the anguish of the prospect of death – their own and that of their loved ones.»

This is a step forward than trying to explain the world, but what you speak about is just therapy, while religion aims further beyond: religion leads from untruth to truth, from darkness to light and from death to immortality.

«I see no justification for maintaining the illusion of a hypothetical or theoretical God.»

God is neither an illusion, nor hypothetical or theoretical - it's the world which is an illusion, including our imagined separateness.

«It is disrespectful of people struggling to cope with their difficulties and existentialist angst.»

These are two very different problems: life-difficulties can be solved by therapy, but existentialist angst can only be resolved by finding God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 8 October 2018 2:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu writes Oct 7. p 20: "Everyone worships something - this is human nature"

My previously-held opinion that you were too erudite to make such a foolish observation, is a salutary lesson that believers in magic are unstable in their convictions and therefore not to be relied upon. I'm a little concerned that more writers have not accosted you and taken you to task for your abnegation of common sense.

The examples you provide are puerile. Some disturbed humans may worship an invisible magician or even another human. Many, many humans admire, enjoy, are devoted to, deeply appreciate, hold in awe, view as mystical or transcendent, those things you exemplify. Worshipping at the altar of power and or money is using "worship" as a metaphor for hyperbolic expression.

At best, it is deceit to try attributing manifold interpretations to a word, especially when it is done with such glib and facile attention to truth and with such a base motive.

WORSHIP: [1] n. The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. Syn, veneration, adoration, glorification, exaltation
v. Show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites. Syn, revere, venerate, adore, honour, glorify, exalt, extol.

You, like so many faithful, like to burden those who disagree with you with the same baggage of contradictory nonsense that your faith lumbers you with. FAITH is a word most commonly perverted by religious conniving and given your record, I'd wager you have been guilty here also.

You also assert: "while worshipping God purifies your heart and helps you out of it."

If my heart was found in need of purification I would consult a doctor. The heart is a wonderful organ. It pumps blood through our body, thus maintaining our life. That it is the seat of emotion, of reverence for magic, of eternal love, etc, etc, is romantic and fanciful nonsense. In its favour, it is not quite so harmful a deceit as the dishonest contriving with the words "worship" and "faith".
continued......
Posted by Pogi, Monday, 8 October 2018 5:03:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued......
You assert further: "I wonder what you think about someone who loves another for no rational reason, where they have nothing to gain for it - they must be total idiots, right?"

Although you address Banjo with this question, I feel it imperative to indicate that here too you fall into the trap of romantic, fanciful piffle. Any psychologist worth his salt will advise that love is essentially a selfish emotion that had endured more romantic garbage written about it than just about anything else that is a trait of humankind. Here I go, making a bold all-encompassing assertion for which fault I have berated you. But there is a big difference, for decades of research confirms the truth of my assertion. All humans are burdened with an innate proclivity for covetousness from an early age. Some things appeal to our senses more than others and this phenomenon differs between individuals. We grow to maturity coveting and at a certain age our hormones concentrate that coveting to a wonderful degree. Human beings have worshipped at the altar of love and ennobled it into the precise opposite of what it actually is. Because it has humble and ignoble origins.

So your use of the words "for no rational reason" and "have nothing to gain" is inappropriate. Both rationality and gain are present. So pervasive and persuasive has been the deception over millennia that people fail to recognise it. That many assume this romanticisation and cultivate it does not make them total idiots, for there is a noble process that brought about the deception. The desire for something to be seen as good rather than bad if it is universal in its application. That it tends to bring joy and a transcendence over the profane and the mundane. It is the epic and the saga of some of humankind's nobler traits.

I have fallen victim to it several times and unabashedly so.
Posted by Pogi, Monday, 8 October 2018 5:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pogi,

How do your claims contribute to this discussion?

Suppose indeed I made a foolish observation and suppose that you are correct in stating that it is incorrect to call what non-religious people do (in relation to money, power, etc.) "worship", so what?

We are all aware what attitude I was referring to, even if I used the wrong word, just as we are also all aware that I was not referring to this blood pump in the middle of our chest.

Even if I used some wrong word(s), the spirit of what I wrote stands and whether agreeing or otherwise, I think that Banjo understands this spirit correctly:

"Worshipping material things sinks you deeper into the mire of this world, while worshipping God purifies¹ your heart and helps you out of it. Even if you deny the spiritual, nothing is more therapeutic than worshipping God because it distracts you from and breaks your habit of worshipping the things of the world."

You have the right to disagree.

Similarly, when Banjo and I speak of love, I believe that we agree to be referring only to the selfless variety, which has "no rational reason" and "nothing to gain".

Yes, there are some cynics who believe that true love does not exist. Banjo and I believe that it does.

---
¹ When I speak of purifying the heart, I refer to the removal of the obstacles to love: lust, anger, greed, delusional attachment, pride and jealousy.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 8 October 2018 7:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for expanding on your notion of worship. What I intensely dislike about worship is what I consider to be the hypocritical posture of those who indulge in it, seemingly demeaning themselves in the presence of the object of their worship, bowing and scraping and emitting what I can only describe as “many humble slurps”.

I have observed similar behaviour in small dogs that encounter much larger dogs in the street. The smaller dog immediately capitulates, rolls-over on its back, wags its tail vigorously and emits “many humble slurps”, while the much larger dog stands over it dominating it, mouth open, tongue hanging out, baring its fangs and growling menacingly. It seems to be a sign of recognition of the superiority of the larger dog by the smaller one – perhaps a tactic of self-defence : “Please don’t hurt me, master. I worship you as my God”.

Is it the animal in us that provokes such behaviour in those of us who worship some idol, God or supposedly superior being or whatever ?
In any event, I do not see this as a manifestation of love. I see it as an act of servility or self-humiliation. It is self-demeaning. It is what the OED defines as worship.

Nor do I consider that it is an act of love for religious devotees to kneel, genuflect, or prostrate themselves when practicing religious rites or ceremonies or whatever. Again, to me, it is an act of servility and worship. It is self-demeaning and self-humiliating.

I have no respect whatsoever for it. It borders on masochism – almost like auto-flagellation. That is not my idea of love. It is at best, pure hypocrisy, at worst, self-serving sensual gratification.

I have great respect for human dignity – at all times and in all circumstances.
.

The best response I can offer to the rest of your post is the image Don Aitkin published today (Monday) in his latest article entitled "At last, some humour" – but, instead of “comforting lies”, please read “comforting beliefs”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 12:47:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo. I don't want a science verses religion conversation, because I see value in scientific inquiry and observation. But it doesn't replace religion. For better or worse the scope of what religion focuses on rarely overlaps with the scope of what science focuses on. When it does overlap though, like say for historical points, I still trust the bible and expect scientific research to keep doing what it's been doing and verifying the different accounts in the bible to be accurate. Same with any other scientific principle that is overlapped in the bible (there aren't many).

Look at it this way. If something is true it is unchanging. If it is true what the bible says in Proverbs concerning topics of wisdom and foolishness, patience and holding your tongue, the value of a good wife verses the hardship of a bad one, or any other topic like truth verses lying; if it is true what it says there, then it's true today, yesterday, a thousand years ago, and likely will remain unchangingly true in times to come.

The same concept of the truth does not change can be applied to any topic from any source. It's not that it's stagnant. It's that it's unchanging. Within scientific discovery, if one thing is discovered, like say properties of electricity, then those properties have always been there. And once discovered that understanding can be built on, but never has to change. (Assuming that the properties and principles are true). The same can be applied to any field of study from medicine to forensic science. From engineering to navigation. If something is true then it isn't stagnant, but instead it's relied on as a foundation. This is the same with the bible as well. If it is true (it's principles, history, or prophesies) then it doesn't have to change with the times.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:07:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

That said, this conversation seems to be getting too convoluted for my taste. From arguing over definitions of nothing, love, and worship; to endless arguing with Yuyutsu and you over the reality of the world. To now Pogi entering the mix looking ready to "put people in their place." It's gotten to the point that I should bow out. Thank you for the conversation so far, and for the respectful tone you've shown.

One last thing to comment on though. I finally finished reading the articles from Stephen Hawkins. Fairly good, and both about the same topic (mostly). The one thing to point out though is that the science of the origins of the universe is a new science. Before that as Stephen outlined in his lecture, it was mostly philosophical stances that scientists took without any observational data to back them up. According to Stephen this was largely because the conclusion that the universe had a beginning did two things. 1) harmed their stance on other studies. And 2) supported religious stances on the stories of there being a beginning.

With this in mind be careful to differentiate between philosophical science, and observational science. It's worth noting the difference instead of clumping them together. At least in my opinion it is.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:09:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Toni. Thank you for your explaination of entropy in space. I don't think it is enough of an explaination for the amount of life on earth, or that life began on earth to start with, but it is something to consider that I hadn't considered before.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:12:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

“Yes”, said Confucius, “… If you can do this, you will be able to go among men in their world without upsetting them. You will not enter into conflict with their ideal image of themselves. If they will listen, sing them a song. If not keep silent. Don’t try to break down their door. … Look at this window: it is nothing but a hole in the wall, but because of it the whole room is full of light” [From “The Fasting of the Heart” by Chuang Tzu (399-295 B.C.)]
Posted by George, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 1:19:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I don't think it is enough of an explaination for the amount of life on earth, or that life began on earth to start with//

It definitely isn't. But neither is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics sufficient to disprove evolution. No physicist has yet observed a violation of the 2nd Law, which is why it remains a law. And it isn't for want of trying; if you can break the 2nd Law you can build over-unity devices (perpetual motion devices). If evolution actually did violate the 2nd Law, physicists would have been all over it some time ago.

I suspect that people who make the claim that the 2nd Law disproves evolution are working on the assumption that most people they're talking to know bugger all about thermodynamics, and thus they'll be able to hoodwink them - either that, or they just haven't properly understood the physics themselves. But those of us who proudly wear the equation S = k.log W as a tattoo feel the urge to do this whenever we hear the claim being repeated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4

Now go forth and sin no more.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:52:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.
You wrote :

« If something is true it is unchanging »

That’s true, Not_Now.Soon, but the question is : how do we know if it is true or not ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY-2einPmd4

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

This small-dog/large-dog example did not occur to me, perhaps because this isn't how we use "worship" in my circles. Clearly the small dog is insincere and has no true devotion, so retrospectively perhaps I should have used the word "devotion" instead?

There were times in my life when I behaved like the small dog, I still do when stopped by police or see a police car behind me, just lay low till the storm passes, but inside I feel contempt rather than adoration, had they only knew what I really think about the regime they represent...

Had the big dog ate poison and laid dying, the small dog would growl and bar his fangs, but when Socrates took poison, Plato instead worshipped him by telling the world, "Hey, this man followed my ideal, I am inspired by him and wish to acquire the same wisdom and courage as my master had"

- This is how me and my friends feel when we kneel, genuflect or prostrate in front of an image of someone, either mythical or historical, who provides us with an example of our ideal, how we aspire to live ourselves. Unlike big-dog or the police, a statue or a picture cannot see my worship or reward me for it, but it does tune my heart into what the image represents. For example, when I see an image of someone who overcame lust, whom lust no longer has any hold on, I prostrate myself and pray to attain the same.

Finally, for some people, a bit of servility and self-humiliating could in fact be a good idea - just imagine how good it could be if politicians actually listened and meant it when parliament opens with "...thy will be done on earth... for the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours..."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« This is how me and my friends feel when we kneel, genuflect or prostrate in front of an image of someone, either mythical or historical, who provides us with an example of our ideal, how we aspire to live ourselves »

Yes, that is worship. It is exactly what I intensely dislike and totally reject. It has nothing to do with love as I understand it (cf., my post to you on the top of page 21 of this thread).

It is self-demeaning, a sign of servility, submission, and self-humiliation.

As I already indicated, I have great respect for human dignity – at all times and in all circumstances.

Love is wise, worship is foolish.

With that, Yuyutsu, if you don’t mind, I think I’ll call it a day. This is evidently something we cannot agree upon.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 3:30:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Toni.

Perhaps I don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics dynamics as well as you do. However, based on what I do know, the second law does cause a hole in our understanding of evolution. Not necessarily the basis of evolution that animals change. But it challenges the basis of evolution when evolution is explained as part of the start of life on earth. The theory that all life started from single cell life to develop into more complex organisms is a counter theory of the theory that over time all things erode and fall apart. There is no natural explanation of adaption and becoming a more complex species when looking at the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't work. Or if it does you'll have to try to explain it more then just asserting that it's all good.

That said, evolution is a separate issue and has it's own holes in it that are worth considering. For thermodynamics, in order for life to exist at all and at the rate it does currently (instead of being much more barren like the other planets, moons, and comets in the solar system) then the 2nd law of thermodynamics can't apply to earth's beginnings or development. Evolution or not, why doesn't Earth look like Mars?
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 5:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo.

"How do we know what is true?" 3 ways we assess the what is true and what isn't.

1) we investigate. Using our own rationale, logic, and understanding we have a great tool for finding answers, interpreting them, and finding faults in them.

2) we test the understanding. Where our understanding can fail or be justified is by our testing what we trust to be true. Sometimes it's not really a test to see the limits and test the boundaries of a theory. But instead is following a rule and a claim and applying it because you trust it. Only then to find out if it really was true or not.

3) third way we assess the truth is simply by trusting where it came from. From kids trusting their parents, to businessmen consulting an expert in a field they are trying to fix or get better with, to even just trusting a doctor with knowing your health issues and able to find solutions.

Of these three ways of assessing the truth though, experience and testing it by seeing how it went for yourself or others is what I'd count as a good source of testing what's true and what's bogus.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 5:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

The second level of this question though isn't about finding faults in a theory or an understanding, but just a radar for bs and lies. For me this is my rule of thumb. If someone says they gave you their experience on one thing or another, ask if there is anything for them to gain by you believing them. If there isn't then there's a good likelihood that the observations are fine and not a con. If they seem sound of mind, (not drunk, high, or otherwise mentally handicapped) then they are likely just as reasonable as you are and worth considering (assuming there isn't something for them to gain from their claims). And if they show no signs of maliciousness or pulling a prank, then it's reasonable to consider them in their claims and observations. Do this and you'll be able to weed out a lot of falsehoods, as well as find out which sources are reliable enough to trust more without the need to test everything they say.

The last consideration in this rule of thumb is to consider that even if they don't measure up against either trustworthy, sound of mind, or has it out to get you; that doesn't disqualify something as being true. But it is less trustworthy. So consider it or reject it on a higher degree of caution.

With regards to the bible being true. I trust it partially from experience and observing others when we try to apply it's teachings, and largely out of trusting God, and my own search and conclusions that the bible is from God.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 5:51:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//But it challenges the basis of evolution when evolution is explained as part of the start of life on earth.//

Sorry, what? Evolution is something that applies to living organisms. What you're talking about is abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

//The theory that all life started from single cell life to develop into more complex organisms is a counter theory of the theory that over time all things erode and fall apart. There is no natural explanation of adaption and becoming a more complex species when looking at the second law of thermodynamics. It doesn't work.//

Sometimes I don't know why I bother....

Hey NNS, if you're such an expert on thermodynamics - without the use of search engines, what do the 0th and 3rd Laws state? What units is entropy measured in? What constant does the k in my tattoo represent, and from what other two well-known constants can it be derived?

Yeah, I thought so. I think I'll probably pay more attention to your criticisms of the 2nd Law when you demonstrate a proper appreciation of the physics.

Here's a great place to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2iTCm0xpDc
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 7:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I think we can agree on the value of freedom, which we both cherish.

«I have great respect for human dignity – at all times and in all circumstances»

[I understand "dignity", but what do you mean by "human dignity"? is animal indignity OK?]

It is common experience to suffer indignity during one's first-few and last-few years of life when we are helpless and unable to control our bodies. It is also the norm to suffer indignity in between, for example when our need to pay the bills drives us to work for a boss/company whose values we disagree with. We also suffer indignity when confronted by authorities, such as in international border-crossing terminals.

But how possibly could voluntary worship from the depth of one's heart be perceived as indignity? All I can think of is the superficial association of physical gestures with some dark past: yes kings, emperors and slave-masters of yore expected such gestures - whether you liked them or not, else off with your head, but there the similarity ends.

«It is self-demeaning, a sign of servility, submission, and self-humiliation.»

All that can possibly (but not always) feel demeaned or humiliated is one's false sense of self, one's ego. Looking at it more deeply, one's true Self is actually the worshipped rather than the worshipper.

As for "servility" and "submission", aren't we all "guilty"?
All we can do is select what we submit to, be it our genetic instincts, our addictions, our senses' desires for gratification, our various other weaknesses, social norms - or God. We are free to choose.

Since this is my free choice, for me, worship of God leads to freedom, most importantly the freedom from birth and death.

Time-servers are the cowering slaves of slaves,
Alone on earth, who serves the Lord is free,
Each soul shall win the gift that it most craves;
Seek God, my soul — God shall your portion be!

- http://www.angelfire.com/ct/halevi/halevi-poem16.html
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 9:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Thank you for indicating your threefold method of determining the truth – in particular, in relation to the narratives of the bible :

1) investigate
2) test the understanding
3) assess the truth simply by trusting where it came from

Historians and archaeologists have pretty much employed this method in relation to the biblical narratives – except, perhaps as regards your third step. I suspect it would be more correct to say they try to identify the source and its validity rather than simply trusting it without question.

Here is a résumé of their findings to date :

Historicity of the bible :

« Archaeological discoveries since the 19th century are open to interpretation, but broadly speaking they lend support to few of the Old Testament's narratives as history and offer evidence to challenge others. »

Historicity of Jesus :

« Almost all historical critics agree that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans, possibly for insurrection. »

Historicity of the gospels :

« Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion. »

Here are the sources :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#cite_note-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

I understand you have your personal reasons for placing your faith in the bible but, as can be seen from the verifiable evidence above, concluding that everything it claims is true, is, I’m afraid, far from reality.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 11 October 2018 12:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« I understand "dignity", but what do you mean by "human dignity"? is animal indignity OK? »
.

As dignity is “the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect” (OED), lying prostrate on the floor in front of someone, an image, idol, God etc., is an attitude not worthy of honour or respect – whether it be executed by a person, animal or any other life form.

I consider that anybody who practices worship demonstrates a lack of self-esteem and self-respect. How can he expect others to respect his human dignity if he does not respect it himself ?

I see no justification for a person devaluing himself simply because he is in the presence of another. His value may be insignificant, it is not diminished any further by the presence of the other.

By the same token, remaining upright or seated does not signify that he is equal to the other. Why should he pretend to be something he is not ?

Why do you and your friends believe that your God (or whatever) is pleased to see you all lying flat on your faces on the floor ? If I were your God, I should be extremely displeased that you thought I should be flattered. I should consider it an insult.

To me, any form of worship is an insult.

I have the utmost respect for human dignity - at all times and in all circumstances.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 11 October 2018 2:31:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

It looks like we stumbled upon this fascinating topic of dignity, but before we embark, either here or on a new dedicated thread, let me stress that I cannot conceive how voluntary worship that comes from one's heart can possibly make a worthiness.dent in one's dignity.

Granted, whatever we do, there will be others who dislike it and might respect us less for it (as well as others who could respect us more for it), but this reflects on THEIR attitude rather on our worthiness.

«I consider that anybody who practices worship demonstrates a lack of self-esteem and self-respect.»

I can't see how, but if anything, in my circles the danger is that someone, by over-prostrating less-than-sincerely, might elicit more undue esteem (from others and from themselves) than they deserve.

«How can he expect others to respect his human dignity if he does not respect it himself ?»

Well I need to understand further what exactly you mean by "human dignity" (as opposed to just "dignity"), so I can evaluate whether and to what extent I respect it to begin with and/or want others to respect mine.

«Why do you and your friends believe that your God (or whatever) is pleased to see you all lying flat on your faces on the floor ?»

Well we don't, at least to the extent that I know my friends. There may well be some uneducated peasants in remote India who still believe so, but this is not what Hinduism teaches. Rather, prostrating in front of an image with an open heart can help to awaken within oneself those qualities that the image represents.

And BTW, in my circles at least, we never bow or prostrate as a group, rather it is an individual expression that those of us who so wish do informally, one-by-one.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 11 October 2018 11:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … I cannot conceive how voluntary worship that comes from one's heart can possibly make a worthiness.dent in one's dignity »
.

That’s what I suspected, Yuyutsu. I perceive it as a selfish act, an act of self-satisfaction – not an act of love for another. In your post on the bottom of page 20 of this thread, you wrote :

« Worship is an expression of love, consisting of the worshipper focusing their attention, through both their senses and their organs of action on their beloved »

To which I replied : I beg to differ, Yuyutsu. The OED defines worship as :

« The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity »

Your mind is turned inwards, not outwards. You are obsessed with all the love you have in your heart that you want to give to your “beloved”. You are not thinking of what your beloved (the “other”) wants. It does not seem to occur to you that he may not want you to love him at all.

Once again, if I were God and I created the universe and everything in it, including mankind, it would not be because I was a narcissist who wanted everything and everybody to worship me and love me with all their hearts and all their minds.

If I created anything, I should not want it to be part of me. I should want it to be something entirely different, separate, independent, completely autonomous. Otherwise I should not have “created” anything at all. It would simply be something I “detached” from myself.

I should want that something to live its life freely, according to its own will – for good or for bad, for better or for worse. Without any intervention whatsoever from my part.

As I already indicated, Yuyutsu, in my humble opinion, worship has nothing to do with love. It has to do with one's own sentiments – without any consideration for the “other”.

I see love as "unconditional selflessness" with an element of “self-sacrifice”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 11 October 2018 8:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Your understanding of God seems to be based on literal reading and common interpretations of some biblical sections. Accordingly you consider God to be an external power and wilful creator, complete with desires and sentiments. No wonder you do not believe in Him - I already showed that such a being cannot exist. But strangely enough you still fantasise "If I were God and I created the universe and everything in it...". You ALREADY are God, Banjo!

No, it does not mean that you are a deity or a creator: gods such as the biblical are useful, but imaginary, tools for focusing one's God-worship, simply because it is practically impossible to focus one's attention directly on God, who has no attributes. If a particular god does not appeal to you, then feel free to worship another whom you love most.

Is worship selfish?

Yes, like anything else we do - how can we escape selfishness anyway? Even if we help others and give charity for example, we do so at best in order to feel good and/or to avoid feeling bad on seeing the suffering of others. Even those who sacrifice their life for others, often desire to be remembered for it.

But what we CAN do, is to discover who we really are, drop the false "self" (often called 'ego'), wake from the illusion of being just a human, with all the small desires that come with it. Yes, this is suicidal for the ego, a "self"-sacrifice, but it is not suicidal for one's true self and our love can eventually overcome our ego. Once we realise that truly we are God, and so are all "others", that our-selves and them-selves are the same, then what could possibly be wrong with such expansive and inclusive "selfishness"?

And in order to get there, we do need to turn our mind inwards, not outwards. Once we look and find God deep inside, we find everything and all others there as well.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 12 October 2018 4:51:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Your understanding of God seems to be based on literal reading and common interpretations of some biblical sections »

No, it is based on the OED definition of God :

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity »
.

You appear to be certain that there is such a God, Yuyutsu, and that you know just about everything there is to know about him. You write :

« You ALREADY are God, Banjo! … If a particular god does not appeal to you, then feel free to worship another whom you love most »

But when I asked you on another thread, back in February this year, for your definition of God, you replied :

« God cannot be defined … »

I don’t see how you can know anything about him if he cannot be defined, or even if there is a God. Why do you believe there is a God if you don’t know what he is ? How do you know that I am God or that there are several gods ? Not only do you think that I am God, but you also advise me to “feel free to worship another whom [I] love most”.

I’m sorry to have to say this, Yuyutsu, but you really do seem to be a little bit confused. None of that makes any sense at all.

As I already indicated I am not inclined to indulge in worship of any kind (‘The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity” – OED), nor to love (defined as "unconditional selflessness" with an element of “self-sacrifice”) any undefinable God or god – even if you consider that I am God.

I’m afraid there’s not much hope that we can ever understand each other, Yuyutsu.

If you don’t mind, I’ll now sign off this thread.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 12 October 2018 8:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A person who speaks of “a God”, and asks for evidence to prove the existence of "a God", understands as little of what (religious) faith is, as the person who speaks of “a gravitation”, and asks for evidence to prove the existence of "a gravitation", understands of physics. One can "see gravitation" only through its effect on material objects, and one can “see God” only through His effect on humanity, especially on the person who sincerely seeks Him.
Posted by George, Friday, 12 October 2018 11:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Banjo Paterson.

Regarding the history within the bible. Archeology is from what I've understood it is a slow process to find results. Within my lifetime there was a point where scholars said there's no evidance of Jesus actually existing. Now that has changed narrative to there is evidance of Jesus existing, but still resistance to accepting Jesus except in the way they redefine Him. With no proof of who Jesus was, they make up their own story of Jesus and call it "the historic Jesus."

As much as I disagree with the falsehood of remaking who Jesus was, it at least shows that there has been evidance to support that Jesus existed. In the same way I see archeological finds confirm details mentioned in the Old Testament. It's the sort of thing that is slow to find, but they are still finding them and confirming them.

With that in mind, I do hope more and more is discovered to continue the trend of confirming different elements of the bible. Even if scholars show resistance to accept the bible as historically accurate, and make up explainations to deny what is uncovered by making up a new narrative (with no evidance to support it) as they had done with Jesus). Even then with misdirection and with questions that haven't yet found an answer in archeological digs, they still keep finding more to confirm the bible instead of correct it. It's worth mentioning that in light of your links.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 13 October 2018 3:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued)

Regarding pride. There are many verses saying that God accepts the humble and hates the proud or the arrogant. This doesn't just mean public acts of bowing to the ground or something in like manner, but more as a way of life. Be humble to those around you and humble to God kind of thing. In that context from what I've seen it actually encourages human dignity among each other because we don't see ourselves as greater or better then others. Which encourages respect among the people your around.

That said, I do not agree with Yuyutsu regarding God being a collection of all of us, or something similar to that nature. In my opinion a personal search for God will find results. It has for me and has for so many others. Therefore the point Yuyutsu makes that He can't be found, comes up short against the testimonies of those who say they have found God.

When it comes to God I think there is merit in both the accounts from people who say they've found Him, as well as merit in seeking Him on our own. Don't leave it up to the historians or the scientists. If God is real and the claim that He seeks to redeem and save us (even as we are, broken and sinful), then a personal search is more then all we need. Historical and scientific searches can continue to progress slowly, but a personal search can be confirmed or rejected within our own influence. Search and see if He responds to show Himself in one way or another.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 13 October 2018 3:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Don't leave it up to the historians or the scientists.//

Science has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god. This is one of those questions that simply cannot be addressed using the scientific method, because science is only concerned with the natural and the supernatural is outside its remit. It is only a grave misunderstanding of the scientific method, or a dodgy god-of-the-gaps theology that leads people to believe that the existence of god can be proven/disproven by applying the scientific method.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 13 October 2018 6:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« One can "see gravitation" only through its effect on material objects, and one can “see God” only through His effect on humanity, especially on the person who sincerely seeks Him »
.

Gravitation is one of the four fundamental physical forces of nature, the other three being electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force. It seems that without these forces, all matter would fall apart.

While it is true that we cannot see gravitation anymore than we can see God, the former is an objective reality. The latter is not. God is a hypothesis which has never been indisputably established.

An interesting article on “Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains this objective reality in the following terms :

« … the laws by means of which we describe the evolution of physical systems have an objective validity because they are the same for all observers. The old and natural idea that what is objective should not depend upon the particular perspective under which it is taken into consideration is thus reformulated in the following group-theoretical terms: what is objective is what is invariant with respect to the transformation group of reference frames, or, quoting Hermann Weyl (1952, p. 132), “objectivity means invariance with respect to the group of automorphisms [of space-time]”. Debs and Redhead (2007) label as “invariantism” the view that “invariance under a specified group of automorphisms is both a necessary and sufficient condition for objectivity” (p. 60). They point out (p. 73, and see also p. 66) that there is a natural connection between “invariantism” and structural realism. »

Unlike the hypothesis of God, the existence of gravitation can be identified and measured according to the following formula :

Fg = (Gm1m2) divided by (r squared)
.

The hypothesised God cannot “be seen through his effect on humanity” as you suggest. That is a belief, not an objective reality. Nobody “who sincerely seeks him” can ever find him. They only believe they do. His existence has never been indisputably established.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 13 October 2018 9:29:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I agree with all you wrote about physics. God is not a scientific hypothesis, neither is gravitation as a matter of fact. They are concepts. To understand the physical world the physicist (theist or atheist) does not need the concept of God - c.f. https://www.quantumdiaries.org/2011/09/16/there-is-no-need-for-god-as-a-hypothesis/ - but he/she needs that of gravitation. Some people need the concept of God to understand themselves and the world they live in, some don’t. NNS, Yuyutsu and I belong to the first group, you to the second. This is all my remark wanted to say.
Posted by George, Saturday, 13 October 2018 5:26:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I can explain in plain words how all I wrote fits nicely together, but I respect your wish to sign off this thread and wish you well.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You seem to have misread me:

«That said, I do not agree with Yuyutsu regarding God being a collection of all of us, or something similar to that nature.»

God is not a collection. We and all else are God for there is nothing but Him, but this also implies that we are all one and the same. "Our" being many, that deceived sense of ego which causes us to feel separate from each other, is just an illusion.

«In my opinion a personal search for God will find results.»

And so is my opinion too.

«It has for me and has for so many others. Therefore the point Yuyutsu makes that He can't be found, comes up short against the testimonies of those who say they have found God.»

What I said and continue to say, is that God cannot be found using objective/empirical/scientific methods.

Of course many have already found God and everyone eventually will - otherwise there would be no point to life, but we do so by looking inside, subjectively, rather than outside, empirically.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 13 October 2018 9:35:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu writes Tuesday, 9 October 2018 10:30:22 AM P.23.: "...just imagine how good it could be if politicians actually listened and meant it when parliament opens with "...thy will be done on earth... for the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours..."

What positively asinine behaviour are you advocating? This is not the Christian Republic of Australia yet!

That prayers have been read for the past 117 years is not by itself a good reason for them to continue. But, there are valid arguments why there should be change. The separation of church and state is provided in section 116 of the Constitution. There we can read that the federal Parliament "shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance". There, too, the Constitution also prohibits religious tests "for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". These provisions are incongruent with Parliament maintaining the observance of Christian ritual.

The census shows that Australia is no more predominantly a Christian nation. In 1966, 88 per cent of people identified as being Christian. 50 years later by 2016, this figure had fallen to 52 per cent. Over the same period, the number of people with no religion has grown from 0.8 per cent to 30.1 per cent. Today, the number of those declaring no religion are the most numerous, well ahead of catholics.

Australia will soon have a majority declaring no religion or have a religion other than Christianity. This is true now in every state and territory except NSW and Queensland. The recital of a christian parliamentary prayer no longer reflects the majority sentiment and privileges one religion above all others.
Our multicultural society should first acknowledge the indigenous owners of the land and one minute of silence provided for those who wish to pray for guidance SILENTLY. No separate areas should be set aside for exclusive use and no special provisions of any kind should be established so that one religion is favoured over others.
Continued...
Posted by Pogi, Saturday, 3 November 2018 3:57:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You write further: "For example, when I see an image of someone who overcame lust, whom lust no longer has any hold on, I prostrate myself and pray to attain the same.

Why are you theistic robots so obsessed with lust and hardcore sex? Fornicating's as natural for our biosphere as defecating and/or funambulating. Anyone who opines that no winkiepop is more intellectually transcendental than lots is a guy better not disturbed any more than he is already. That transcendental high makes a diamond-cutter feel slack. Transcend? When you are transcending man it's the intellect that gets to fly at forty thousand feet and you don't feel the cold, I can tell you.
And there are more thrills in being transcended for the third time than there is in prostrating yourself! I've just got to tell you! After a couple of cups of Kopi Luwak and a Romeo y Julieta cigar fresh from its hermetically-sealed aluminium tube you just know the old intellect can find its own way home. I'm told never roller-skate to the beach straight afterward unless you have a death-wish.
Posted by Pogi, Saturday, 3 November 2018 4:01:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pogi,

Perhaps you are right in saying that this custom of reading the Lord's Prayer in parliament should be replaced with silent reflection and private prayer, but so long as this is the case, why not benefit from it, reflect on the words and thereby generate a little bit of positivity in parliament's polluted atmosphere? I am not a Christian either, but I would still make the best of the opportunity!

Lust is a problem for those who seek God like myself, so we look up to those exceptional few who managed to overcome it. The issue with lust is not with sex, but with our attachment to sexuality, not with what we physically do (such as fornication, which you mentioned), but with how we think, how our mind works - it is a deep-rooted mental problem, an obstacle on the path to God which I pray to overcome!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 3 November 2018 9:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy