IMO, if God is easily explainable in science and reason, then He’s not that great of a god.
BUT science and reason, reason without FAITH, aren’t enough. religion calls for faith. no matter the religion, ‘you gotta have faith.’
otherwise, every one of us is a ‘doubting Thomas’
not to sling mud but a certain someone on this topic was putting down on another for being, what he termed ‘arrogant’ for believing that his religion is the right one. right one maybe for him. same for a muslim and same for a jew.
the exact same can be said for the basher. god doesn’t exist to YOU because YOU do not believe or have faith. does that make him NOT real to everybody? or just you?
i could quote something from the bible but basically it goes something like, to paraphrase, Thomas didn’t believe that Christ had rose from the dead. the only way to believe would have to be to actually see Jesus and the wounds he recieved. After seeing the wounds, he said to Christ’ “My Lord and My God!”
and Jesus said to him’ “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are the those who have not seen and have believed.”
now, a discussion of moving from the inferior to the superior while moving from exterior to the interior will have to wait another day.
Okay, that was a bad question… What I meant to ask was how does “purpose” dictate the existence of a deity? Sure, we can find a logical purpose to the simple things and even the silliest things we do, but they all seem to benefit us or at least we believe they benefit us.
Well it’s not a direct connection, as you allude to here, the idea of purpose can be man made but I claim that nothing can be made by man from scratch, he must have the materials and tools already, even ideas are borrowed from observing nature. So to say we make our own purpose does not compute with me, we only borrow and reshape what we have. Purpose is so entrenched in every part of us plus the fact that there is no evidence that we were ever any other way. All this points to an outside source of purpose, just like we can see evidence that all things (but the first thing) have a source and this source is beyond and above us. If we can get that far and have any agreement then we can talk about why that source would most probably be intelligent as it is impossible for a sentient being to have purpose without intelligence, at least as far as I can see.
It’s a logical Idea…As far as Possibly being an outside source of course it could be an Inborne one too Such as…Oh, the soul perhaps? Still not seeing the suport for it being God…
Still a Good Idea all the same.
And good point with the reshapeing of what is already there. But that applies to everything includeing metaphysical being’s or God. Energy is still something and can be transformed into matter. (Which IF God created the Universe is essentialy what he would have to do)
Oh really? What about automotives? What animal in nature, besides man, created a more efficient method of travel? You could argue that a horse was “created for us to use”, but I would counter that the horse evolved the way it did and that we domesticated it for OUR purpose of USING it to get us where WE wanted to go. The automobile (or the bicycle for that matter) was created as a lower-maintenance and more efficient method of travel. We willed the desire to travel farther and faster than our bodies are capable of, and with that will, we created or used things with that purpose in mind to which we desired. What have you to say?
Would you say that it is not your own will that creates your reason for existence? Your “purpose” is what you make it, but your desire to live fulfills that purpose. Perhaps your parents could help you better understand… ask them why they wanted to have a child. Your existence is an effect of their desire… your purpose to them was to extend their existence. What have you to say?
I’m not sure what you mean by that, please explain.
I disagree. Please present a more sufficient argument for your case.
Im thinking on a different level then you seem to be here. I meant to convey that we don’t make our own materiels, the automobile was fashioned from minerals and ores of this earth which we did not create. The origins of the idea of the automobile must have a source as well and we cannot create intelligence ourselves the way I see it. If so then someone was the first man to be intelligent and he is the God of intelligence, see what I’m getting at here? Just like my assertion that books are not the source of knowledge, you can trace it back to the observance of nature by the author ultimately and this nature probably even had a source, but even if it didn’t for the sake of argument then nature would be the source of Intelligence and thus the God of intelligence. So at the very least, the source of the ideas and materials of an automobile would be nature.
No, I would say that it is my soul that allows me to understand purpose and connect that to what I do, its my awareness that allows this. I see purpose in everything around me; it is only logical to extend that to yourself when looking inward. The ego makes all this purpose about yourself, but other factors make you see that this means nothing without someone to share it with and this starts one down the path of real purpose that will ultimately lead to the absolute Purpose.
This is the selfish part I’m talking about and this is a form of counterfeit purpose, it wont stand on its own in a vacuum, you must have other symbiotic life forms to connect with to see true purpose and have a will to live. Without others there is no Purpose.
Just what I said, there is no hard physical evidence that we humans ever lived without understanding and operated in purpose in all that we did from the beginning of time.
Not until we find some common ground or have a consensus on the foundation first, there would be no point discussing this at this time.
Looking at ghosts and how we only see electromagetic side effects of ghosts. I’d say all we can do is see the side effects of God.
IE quantum fluctuation is the proven random disapearance and appearance of atoms. In this I say that everything comes from nothing. If you divide nothing into something you have to create equal opposites that would randomly cancel out and reapear.
…and? If we did not conceive the idea, those “materials” would not have been utilized. We work with what we have. Your argument makes no sense… you’re trying to argue that the purpose of the automobile is not based on our idea of it, but its own materials. Silly.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read… are you trying to argue that we do not create our ideas?
Yeah, I see what you’re getting at. You’re arguing for the intellectual equivalent of the “first cause” argument for a deity… that there had to be some intelligent force that “caused” the lifeforms on this planet to begin developing the first sparks of thought, right? I’ve got a better and more efficient answer: evolution through environmental surroundings.
At the very least, your argument is a hypothesis without evidence.
You have misunderstood me, but I apologize for contributing to that misunderstanding. When I said “your desire to live”, I was referring to whatever, and all, possible reasons you have to exist. Social interactions with other life forms, no matter what the nature of those interactions are, is a shaping element in your desire to live… your purpose for existing. If you were alone (completely and forever), your reasons for existing would be reduced to the time you have to live (unless you killed yourself).
…and?There is no hard physical evidence to support any of your assertions either! What is your point?
Such a common ground will not exist unless you provide a shred of credible evidence to support your claims. Since you are unwilling to do this, your argument stands as it is… a hypothesis without evidence.
Faith is undoubtedly a cornerstone to many religious beliefs for obvious reasons (it would be hard for anybody to believe that a man raised people from the dead, walked on water, etc….or that one would receive 72 virgins in heaven).
An important question would be why is faith in our (American) culture considered a virtue? Is it considered a virtue because it is taught that it’s a virtue? If this is the only reason, does it make sense to consider faith a virtue? Does it make sense for a religion to teach that it is wrong to question the virtuous nature of faith-based beliefs?
I feel these questions are important when considering faith-based beliefs outside the realms of religion. For instance, would it be considered virtuous to believe the earth was flat? Or that unicorns exist? A Nietzche quote comes to mind:
We would not consider faith a virtue in any other aspect of life other than religion. We would not take, based on faith, that somebody in our family was killed. Or that the president was assassinated. We would not believe, based on faith, that a cure for cancer had been discovered, or that, as in recent news in Africa, the cure for aids had been found that was served out of a syrup bottle. There is a good reason we do not believe things based on faith. Why doesn’t this extend into religious beliefs? And again, if the only reason it doesn’t extend into religious beliefs is because we are taught that it should not, is this a teaching that should be questioned? Is this a valid or beneficial teaching?
I am trying to argue that we don’t conceive our ideas completely on our own intellect, we use observed and understood laws as a template on how to engineer and use logic, all of which were here before us.
No, I didn’t go that far, I was trying to keep it on a much more shallow level and show that there is simply an outside source to our intelligence, in this case the source would be nature.
I’m trying to show a logical path that reveals the evidence already present.
No, IMO social interaction is not a shaping element it is the very foundation, without others you would kill yourself or go mad. Loneliness is the most undesirable feeling a human can have and nobody can stand it for very long.
The point is that there is no counter evidence to show we evolved this idea of purpose.
I’m working on it bit by bit, but your rudeness and aggressive prodding will have to end immediately if we are to go on.
Uhm… I don’t get around to this thread for less than 24 hours after you make your last post and you assume that I “gave up”? Gee kd, you really should cease to look at a forum board as a chat room. I’ve been busy in the Social Sciences forum lately, but aside from that, I don’t consider “this” topic a high priority any longer because 1) you have yet to make a valid case for your argument, and 2)because we’re no longer discussing what I introduced in my first post. Simple as that. Now… to respond to your comments…
Perhaps if you gave an example… ?
Perhaps you didn’t want to go that far, but you will have to if you persist to imply in some “ultimate purpose”. In any case, I still disagree. If we were talking about “knowledge”, then I would be more receptive. “Knowledge” does come from external observation… but intelligence? I think you’ve been barking up the wrong tree.
Great! Let’s see it!
I’ll get back to you on that… For the time being, consider the history and evolution of religious beliefs. It is within that context that the idea of purpose evolved to begin with.
So… how about that “sufficient argument” for your case?
We design based on what we observe, we copy natures laws and rules and reverse engineer them to use in all forms of construction and travel, surly you can see this. We don’t make anything on our own, we only reform and shape the materials we already have. Again, this begs the question, “where did the idea originate formâ€. It never originates from our minds without input from what we observe, if we didn’t or couldn’t observe we could not do anything or think anything with our physical minds.
The source to all things known and done is beyond us humans.
I thought I was talking about knowledge, but I don’t have the time to search the original question or assertion. Anyway for now lets say it is only about knowledge.
I’m working on it, talk about patience, you lay the foundation before you build on it don’t you?
I doubt anything would be sufficient for you but I will try to show the logical path if you can wait. I’ve already laid the groundwork for the idea that no source to anything we do is from us but instead an outside force.
I was reading this and it just clicked in my head:“What about weapons?”What in nature could we have copied to develop the bow?Certain elemental ingredients mixed together will produce an explosion, but what intelligence in nature came up with the idea to use explosives to kill? Of course there are lifeforms with “defensive mechanisms” which they have evolved with, but offensive? What are the natural sources for war?
Even if that is the case, there is no reason to assume that whatever is beyond us must be a divine intelligence. You would be worshipping a “god of gaps”, so to speak. Is that what you wish to worship?
Interesting that you bring that up, there is a beetle that has a volatile chemical mixture in the its abdomen and can mix this and spurt it out the back side and then spurt the catalyst from a separate compartment at precisely the right time far away from its body and when mixed it explodes to hurt much larger predators. Also there are other bugs and animals that that shoot spears from their bodies like the cone shell. Anyway, many things we observe or accidentally happen upon give rise to an idea, like gunpowder.
Not if I can fill in the gaps or not make the mistake of assuming the gaps I cant explain are of God automatically, so far I don’t think I’ve done that.
What creatures do that? Regardless (although I’m sure you’re not lying about it), you are making a case for projectiles… something early humans could have figured out by throwing a rock or a stick and it hitting someone. I asked specifically about the bow. How can you argue that early humans observing some creature that shoots spears from its body would then be inspired to take a sturdy stick that could bend and tie vine or rope on either end with the intent to fire a projectile? Of course not… it is more likely that the observation led directly to the early human’s attempt to copy the action by physically throwing something.
What about bread?Early humans may have seen an animal eat wheat and tried it for themselves, but then did not those same humans develop the ideas on their own to grind that wheat into a grain, which then could have been mixed with water and baked?
I still disagree with your assessment. While early humans may have observed phenomena that inspired them to copy the action, there is no way that same phenomena could have given rise to the creation of an idea that was not previously observed in nature. The bow is not a naturally occuring phenomena on this planet.
You will have to; it is inevitable. Good luck in your attempt to fill those gaps though!
Oh yeah, you didn’t answer what the natural sources for war are.