Actually I saw a thread in this section which asked " Why did God Create Human being?"
I am asking the question other way round
I guess Human being created God to circumvent his fear of death and his/her wish for a good life
People were always afraid of the unknown. Creating an powerful entity or entities seemed like a plausible explanation to explain the unknown and try to soothe fears. Especially during the ancient times when science and technology were at its infancy.
In my opinion, that is why you see so many different cultures have various potent Gods controlling various facets of weather, nature, and death. Such as the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs and so forth.
god create a human becoz of love...
The question asks for the opposite of that 
The way I see it, humans created deities when that couldn't explain nearly anything of the naturally occuring stuff that just happened (like lightnings, floods, etc), as the simplest ever possible explanation. "This dude who lives up there thrown that lighning so the tree there blew up, you know? Don't make him angry anymore, please". It's an oversimplified thought, yet I think life wasn't that complex back then. Man has an almost insatiable desire to explain life, the universe and everything. The benign reason for man's creation of 'God' (and 'gods') was to fulfil this desire. Since man did not have the knowledge to discover and explain the natural causes of natural objects and events the simplest conclusion was that an all-powerful entity must have created it all. This is Occam's Razor at work resulting in thousands of years of civilisation based on flawed reasoning.
Man also had a fundamental requirement to set himself apart from the animals. Since he saw himself as their better it would not have been possible to assume that he was a derivation of the same process that created them. He had to exist for a 'special' reason. The only way to explain that is to assume that someone or something must have made man 'special'. That could only be done by giving that responsibility to a superior entity - 'God'.
It seems that many people have a need to blame others for their misfortune, or thank others for their good fortune. Many do not realise that simple probability and just being in the 'right' or 'wrong' place at the 'right' or 'wrong' time plays its part - as does their own knowledge/skill, or lack of knowledge/skill and having, or not having, a network of supportive or unsupportive friends and relatives. This is the reason for the assumption that 'divine' intervention is responsible for many, if not all, events.
Having invented 'God' (or 'gods') those who seek power realised that fear of 'God', or a desire to gain 'Gods' approval, could be used to exert influence and even directly control people. Shamans, witch-doctors, priests, and especially the senior clergy are all in this category. This is the malevolent reason for man's creation and use of 'God'. From a religious point of view most of us live in a far less restrictive world, now, than even - say - 100 years ago. As people have become more knowledgeable this abuse of power and belief has been less successful.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Actually I saw a thread in this section which asked " Why did God Create Human being?"
I am asking the question other way round
I guess Human being created God to circumvent his fear of death and his/her wish for a good life |
you would only ask that if you dont believe in god. I believe human being found god.Was he in hiding before the Human being found him?
Religion in general was created as a means of controlling the masses and having basic founding morals/principles which people would follow due to fear of the consequences from the gods. And it still works today..."don't follow my commandments, go to hell." Same fear used for thousands of years..amazing people still haven't gotten over it.
Given so many religions and "Gods" out there, not all of them can be right, so there is a sense of humans creating a God out there.
I think, however, that there is a real God, a real higher being that caused us and the human "need" to create a "God" or higher being stems from the fact that one actually exists but we are unsure of it/His* qualities so we see a lot of theories, opinions on who God is.
*I didn't say it/His/Her because, honestly, if God was a woman whould She really make a "man's world"? I only mention this because I am assuming someone would point out the lack of a Her.
God was never created. A majority of religion simply asserts that God has always existed, is existing, and will exist. The beginning and the end, etc.
So I would say that God has always been there, but humans (since they were created) have 'found' God. He wasn't hiding, He's always been there, but He has revealed Himself through many religions and through many people.
What I find interesting is the common response to religion, "What created God?", while at the same time, the devout could respond to the Big Bang Theory with, "What created the Big Bang?" If in truth none are purely 'logical...'
And another question to the current duo of God creating humans and vice versa... What if the point of the creation of man was to 'observe' God. As without observation nothing is truly definite, then wouldn't God exist just as much as we chose to believe? In that sense humans would have created a manifestation of God, while God still created the humans.
| wombatrpgs wrote: |
| What I find interesting is the common response to religion, "What created God?", while at the same time, the devout could respond to the Big Bang Theory with, "What created the Big Bang?" If in truth none are purely 'logical...' |
That is not correct. The two questions are not symmetric.
Asking "what created or caused the Big Bang" is nonsensical. The Big Bang created time. There was no "before", and hence, nothing could have "caused" anything before the Big Bang happened. What - precisely - does this mean? We don't know yet, we're still working out the details. Isn't that a problem? No, not really. Here's why:
First, ask why you can't make the same claim for God, and say God created time, and thus the question of what created God is nonsensical? The answer is: because God is unlike the Big Bang in one crucial way... God thought about creating the universe. That means there must have been intent, followed by creation. That means time must have meaning for God, before he created anything.
On the contrary, nothing has to have caused the Big Bang and nothing has to have planned it. It could be a brainless phenomenon that just happened, without requiring a prior agent. So there is no reason to assume that there must be a "before" the Big Bang, and thus the question of what happened before does not need an answer at this point - it might not even have an answer, according to what we know now. We can say, "we don't know, might be nothing," and we're not contradicting anything, not even logic.
And that is why the question "who created God" is such a big problem, but the question "what caused the Big Bang" is not. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Religion in general was created as a means of controlling the masses and having basic founding morals/principles which people would follow due to fear of the consequences from the gods. And it still works today..."don't follow my commandments, go to hell." Same fear used for thousands of years..amazing people still haven't gotten over it. |
I don't think I could ever worship or love anyone who wanted me to do so with fear. If someone loves you infinately why would they want to instill fear in you? I've never understood the concept of fearing "your Almighty God" in any religion. I am atheist and I believe the concept of God is an act out of fear and/or control. Like people before me in this topic have said:
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Religion in general was created as a means of controlling the masses and having basic founding morals/principles which people would follow due to fear of the consequences from the gods. And it still works today..."don't follow my commandments, go to hell." Same fear used for thousands of years..amazing people still haven't gotten over it. |
| Indi wrote: |
| First, ask why you can't make the same claim for God, and say God created time, and thus the question of what created God is nonsensical? The answer is: because God is unlike the Big Bang in one crucial way... God thought about creating the universe. That means there must have been intent, followed by creation. That means time must have meaning for God, before he created anything. |
This is a pretty firmly western view of what the word "God" is supposed to mean. I think the broader question the topic was meant to address is, assuming religion is a creation of humanity, why humanity would want to create such a thing. In most religions, when a deity is personified, it's clearly to be read as a symbol referring to something impersonal - the ultimate nature of existence, the cause of life and death, the nature of consciousness, etc. Things which cannot necessarily be talked about, or even known, but which we are aware of in some way. The personality is to be interpreted as an image serving only to point towards that presence. Set and Osiris symbolizing (not explaining) the balance of destruction and growth in nature, for example. When we concretize the personality, we tend to lose the message that the personality originally symbolized.
| Quote: |
| On the contrary, nothing has to have caused the Big Bang and nothing has to have planned it. It could be a brainless phenomenon that just happened, without requiring a prior agent. |
...and this is a very good description of many cultures' concept of creation. We have no idea what came before the Big Bang, if anything, and this is, in essence, the same statement that could have been made about existence thousands of years ago. "We don't know what came before all this, if anything." We've just shifted the reference a bit as our knowledge has increased. But the ultimate mystery is still there, unanswered, likely unanswerable, and the all-encompassing god is properly still a symbol of it. What is all this? What am I? To what extent am I truly separate from other things? We've gotten very good at classifying types of matter and energy, predicting their behavior and whatnot, but we are not much closer to knowing where it all came from than we've ever been. And that mystery is really at the root of religion, if you ask me. So the questions "what created God" and "what caused the Big Bang" are not necessarily different at all, when considered in a certain frame of mind. | eggg wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | First, ask why you can't make the same claim for God, and say God created time, and thus the question of what created God is nonsensical? The answer is: because God is unlike the Big Bang in one crucial way... God thought about creating the universe. That means there must have been intent, followed by creation. That means time must have meaning for God, before he created anything. |
This is a pretty firmly western view of what the word "God" is supposed to mean. I think the broader question the topic was meant to address is, assuming religion is a creation of humanity, why humanity would want to create such a thing. In most religions, when a deity is personified, it's clearly to be read as a symbol referring to something impersonal - the ultimate nature of existence, the cause of life and death, the nature of consciousness, etc. Things which cannot necessarily be talked about, or even known, but which we are aware of in some way. The personality is to be interpreted as an image serving only to point towards that presence. Set and Osiris symbolizing (not explaining) the balance of destruction and growth in nature, for example. When we concretize the personality, we tend to lose the message that the personality originally symbolized. |
None of what i said has anything to do with east or west, or how you conceive of any given god. It falls out the following train of logic:
1.) Someone says the universe was created by the Big Bang, and that they don't have to explain anything else. In particular they claim they don't have to say what caused the Big Bang.
2.) Someone else says that they think the first person is "cheating", and if they don't have to explain what caused the Big Bang, then why do religious people have to explain what created whatever it is they think created the universe - usually some personal entity named God (although it doesn't have to be personal, as long as intent in some form or another exists, and if no intent exists, then it might as well be a mindless mechanism of nature)? This second person then turns around and claims that God (or whatever) created the universe, and if the Big Bang advocate doesn't have to explain what caused the Big Bang, then they don't have to explain where this "God" came from.
Following from that, i explained why the person in 2 is wrong. Unless God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism, then the same argument the person in 1 used doesn't apply. And if God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism... then how is it any different from the Big Bang?
It doesn't matter whether your conception of this creation force - which i've called "God" as a shorthand - is based on eastern or western philosophy. Logic knows no geographical borders.
| eggg wrote: |
| Quote: | | On the contrary, nothing has to have caused the Big Bang and nothing has to have planned it. It could be a brainless phenomenon that just happened, without requiring a prior agent. |
...and this is a very good description of many cultures' concept of creation. We have no idea what came before the Big Bang, if anything, and this is, in essence, the same statement that could have been made about existence thousands of years ago. "We don't know what came before all this, if anything." We've just shifted the reference a bit as our knowledge has increased. But the ultimate mystery is still there, unanswered, likely unanswerable, and the all-encompassing god is properly still a symbol of it. What is all this? What am I? To what extent am I truly separate from other things? We've gotten very good at classifying types of matter and energy, predicting their behavior and whatnot, but we are not much closer to knowing where it all came from than we've ever been. And that mystery is really at the root of religion, if you ask me. So the questions "what created God" and "what caused the Big Bang" are not necessarily different at all, when considered in a certain frame of mind. |
But you go right back around and make the same mistake again - you say: "We have no idea what came before the Big Bang, if anything..." That is not technically correct. We don't know everythig about the Big Bang, sure... but what we do know tells us that there is no before. So we do have an idea of what came before the Big Bang... nothing. That may sound counterintuitive and hard to imagine, but so is most of quantum mechanics, and we know that's relatively correct.
So, no, what you say is not correct. We have not shifted the reference anywhere - we have discovered, assuming that what we know about the Big Bang so far is correct, what the answer is. It's just not an easy answer to swallow. If you say "but something might have come before", you're no longer talking about the Big Bang, at least not as science talks about it.
The two questions are not parallel - not in the least. God, in every religion, is based on human understanding. Now, whether the real God, whatever that may be, is actually anything like what any of the religions understand, no one knows. Maybe every religion is wrong, and the understanding they have of God is really just limited by the limitations of the human intellect. i can't say whether that's the case or not - no one can. All i have to work with is the descriptions they give.
Every description of God hinges on human understanding. In other words, everything we know about any conception of God you choose has come to us via a human mind, be it the writers of the Vedas or the writers of the Tanakh, or even your own personal communion with nature. Maybe those writers were divinely inspired, but they had to describe what they were told using human languages. Maybe you do have a personal connection to the divine through your link with nature, but you're still processing that connection with a human mind. Therefore, everything we know about God is limited by human understanding. And there is no way, given our human understanding, that something can have no cause. Therefore God, assuming he is as religion X describes, requires a cause. You can pick any religion for X.
The Big Bang, on the other hand, is described by science, which is not defined by human intellect, but rather by observing nature. Several times over the ages, especially in the last century, we have had to adapt our intellect to match our observations. There is no reason that it has to make sense that nothing caused the Big Bang. It just is (as far as we know), and we'll have to adapt our understanding of the universe to grasp that fact.Because people need entertainment... also people need to be controlled for achieving political results.
The creation of religion began with the creation of legends. Legends were fostered in order for humans to explain the unexplainable.
Later in history, religion was used as a governing body to coerce otherwise unwilling participants into doing something with the allure of a better afterlife, another one of life's great mysteries.
Although currently it can be said that religion is not as powerful a force as it used to be, without the existence of the major religions in the world, it is doubtful that our societies could have developed as they did. After all, without the idea of divine monarchy, what would make people just decide to follow a random person? (prior to voting.)
A lot of these posts are indicating things about religion being the "opium of the masses," and this probably true especially in certain periods of history...
However, I wonder if any clergyman ever thinks that he is 'controlling' people? I'd say today, even up t the Pope, don't believe they are using religion to control. I'd say the ones most responsible for that would be the politicians, who actually have something to gain. Religion as a campaign platform... It's more of a matter of having the 'right' religion than of actual beliefs. Most politicians will dodge questions regarding specific beliefs, but will clearly portray themselves as the everyday churchgoer, who probably has a very clear set of beliefs.
| wombatrpgs wrote: |
A lot of these posts are indicating things about religion being the "opium of the masses," and this probably true especially in certain periods of history...
However, I wonder if any clergyman ever thinks that he is 'controlling' people? I'd say today, even up t the Pope, don't believe they are using religion to control. I'd say the ones most responsible for that would be the politicians, who actually have something to gain. Religion as a campaign platform... It's more of a matter of having the 'right' religion than of actual beliefs. Most politicians will dodge questions regarding specific beliefs, but will clearly portray themselves as the everyday churchgoer, who probably has a very clear set of beliefs. |
When politicians say they have a religious faith the aim is not generally to control people but rather to gain the votes of a segment of the electorate that share that faith. This is particularly true in the US where the votes of the christian right are seen as important in gaining power. Here in the UK it is much less of an issue (rightly, I believe).
The idea that the Pope, as head of the Catholic faith, is not interested in control is flawed. All religions have a dogma and it is surely one of their aims to encourage/enforce their own dogma (otherwise what are they for?). Catholics, to take one example, would like to see laws on abortion and birth control changed in many western countries and work actively to achieve their goals - ie to control.Control????
I've fooled around learning a lot of history. Religion doesn't control people. it sets up values. Many of these values are very evident truths, such as loving people and not taking revenge, that appeal to people. It can be very powerful.
Controlling entities then use this power, the Catholic faction of medieval Europe, Persian empire, to control the followers of the religion. They even pervert the values. We can see this clearly in Islamic Radicals of today. They're not fighting and killing people for Islam, they have been convinced that someone is a dangerous enemy to them and their values.
Blaming religion for this is quite ignorant. You can see this by removing religion - you still have values. The Soviets had no religion - but they had values. Loyalty to "The People" for example. Soviet leader then used these values, just like a religion, to 'control' the people. Their enemies were proclaimed to be enemies of 'The People.' Islam radicals are motivated to fight the enemies of God. Little difference with or without religion.
I would use caution with the question of why people "invented God."
Universally, humans have a hunger for 5 things, food, drink, protection, companionship, procreation, and a connection to a creator, in whatever form. All but the last we can see and prove. The exception being, almost always in comfortable societies where all is abundant, people explain their creation in other ways. The fact is, innately, we have a hunger for a connection with a creating entity.
Perhaps this is prof that an entity created people, or perhaps people assume we were created as we create. Regardless, it is interesting that belief in a creator is so universal.
Perhaps a distinction should be made at this point between religion per se and the institutions of religion. My comments were specifically directed to the latter, since the Pope is such an institution....
There again, an institution is an institution. An philosophy a philosophy. Does it matter if it's religious? Blaming religion for world ills is just as dangerous of a philosophy as the religious philosophy it condemns.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| There again, an institution is an institution. An philosophy a philosophy. Does it matter if it's religious? |
Of course it matters if it's religious. ^_^;
By definition, anything based on religious principles - whether it is a philosophy, an institution, or your menu choices for dinner - is not based on empirical evidence or logical reasoning. If it happens to agree with what empirical evidence or logical reasoning suggests, well then lucky you. If not....
Any philosophy based on religious principles will always, always, always be subordinate to any philosophy based on empirical observations, or logical reasoning, or both. Always. Why? Because any philosophy that you have no reason to believe is true will always be subordinate to any philosophy that you have reason to believe is true. And by the definition of religion - which is based on belief held by faith, not empirical evidence or logical reason - there is no reason to believe it is true. Therefore, any non-religious philosophy (assuming it has any support at all) will be superior to any religious philosophy. QED.
Go ahead and try it. Say: "i believe X because that is what Christianity/Judaism/Scientology teaches", then say: "i believe X because it agrees with the observations made or because it is the only thing that makes logical sense". Which sounds better to you? Two doctors are standing over you with scalpels ready to operate, one saying they know how to make you well based on what they believe is wrong with you based on their faith, and the other saying they know how to make you well based on what they have observed to be wrong with you and logically deducing how to repair that damage. Which would you let operate?
(And before anyone tries to weasel their way out of the problem by saying they can believe something religious by rational means (ie, they can have a reason for believing something religious)... yes, but no. If you say: "i believe X because that is what Christianity/Judaism/Scientology teaches AND because it agrees with the observations made or because it is the only thing that makes logical sense"... you are appealing to both religion and reason. All fine and good, but take the religion out and it still works. Take the reason out... and it does not. Therefore, even if you believe something by both religion and reason, the reason still trumps the religion.)
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Blaming religion for world ills is just as dangerous of a philosophy as the religious philosophy it condemns. |
Nonsense.
Blaming religion for the world's ills might be wrong... or it might not. It depends on what your reason for blaming religion is. If you have no reason, or if your reason is just that you hate the idea of religion, then yes, it would be a dangerous philosophy.
You seemed to have assumed that is the case without asking any questions at all. Wouldn't you like to know why someone might blame religion for the world's ills before you write their beliefs off as dangerous? To me, that just seems the logical thing to do. After all, telling someone they are not only wrong, but a threat (dangerous), without bothering to even hear why they believe what they do... well, to use your words, that seems a little dangerous to me.Indeed, a philosophy based on observation, with regard to governing a state, is superior to a religious philosophy, but it is no less dangerous.
You have it backwards. I didn't decide on day that anti-religious people were wrong, arbitrarily. I've looked the arguments, and they are flawed. Blaming crusades and jihads on religions is not valid. Religion was simply used as a mechanism for motivating people onto a particular factions side.
Communism, and Democracy are both philosophies based on social observation. Neither works despite the creator's proof or observation. Nazism is also based on observation and 'proof.' Electroshock therapy, considering lesbians mentally ill, and applying leaches were also based on observation and 'proof.'
I'm not saying science is no better than religion. Science is what we have and I believe it extremely important to develop. However, science will never be enough. It will never fill the hunger every human society had shown to find a connection with its creator. Science can't replace religion, despite efforts of atheists, who are also following a religion, a religion that sees the creator as forces created by unknown forces. Unknown - Big-bang - evolution.
Regardless, and back to my point, any philosophy can be dangerous regardless of its validity. I determine this simply from history. You might say more people will rally to a valid philosophy or that an educated philosophy based on observation and proof is safer because it will determine harming people is wrong.
This just isn't the case. Communism was developed by Karl Marx based on his social observations. Millions world wide took to it, mostly educated people in the lead, students and professionals. Yet, we see now that the system doesn't really work. Further, it was hijacked and used better than any religion in history to CONTROL people.
Nazism was also developed by observation and proof by educated moral people, yet it brought the world to the most devastating conflict history has ever known and proactively ans systematically attempted to exterminate an entire population of a certain people.
Perhaps a valid philosophy is more dangerous? What better way to justify your actions than to point to your proof and observations.
Every philosophy like communism, democracy and most importantly religion work under specific time and space coordinates
Karl Mark's Communism was good at his time now it has its flaws
It was more an economic treatise than philosophy.
Mohammad's religion was considered correct at that time in those space coordinates
Hence it is important to note that everything changes
as does our outlook to various past philosophies
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
This just isn't the case. Communism was developed by Karl Marx based on his social observations. Millions world wide took to it, mostly educated people in the lead, students and professionals. Yet, we see now that the system doesn't really work. Further, it was hijacked and used better than any religion in history to CONTROL people. |
This is wrong. Communism predates Marx by centuries. In the Middle ages many religious communities were essentially communist and it can be argued that Thomas More's 'Utopia' is a communist manifesto.
Marx himself joined the Communist league well before his later writings....
| Quote: |
Nazism was also developed by observation and proof by educated moral people, yet it brought the world to the most devastating conflict history has ever known and proactively ans systematically attempted to exterminate an entire population of a certain people. |
Nazism was not developed by observation and proof. It was thrown together by various German politicians after the Treaty of Versailles and represents a mishmash of ideologies and beliefs. It was never a coherent, rational social philosophy and was certainly not based on scientific method.None of what i said has anything to do with east or west, or how you conceive of any given god. It falls out the following train of logic:
1.) Someone says the universe was created by the Big Bang, and that they don't have to explain anything else. In particular they claim they don't have to say what caused the Big Bang.
2.) Someone else says that they think the first person is "cheating", and if they don't have to explain what caused the Big Bang, then why do religious people have to explain what created whatever it is they think created the universe - usually some personal entity named God (although it doesn't have to be personal, as long as intent in some form or another exists, and if no intent exists, then it might as well be a mindless mechanism of nature)? This second person then turns around and claims that God (or whatever) created the universe, and if the Big Bang advocate doesn't have to explain what caused the Big Bang, then they don't have to explain where this "God" came from.
another assumption is that there was a start of time. there are many theories that account for the period before the big bang. for example, one says that out universe came out of the super compact matter that was the stuff in the "hole" of a black hole. thus, our univers could be a universe branching off of an infinite number of universes
| videoguy wrote: |
None of what i said has anything to do with east or west, or how you conceive of any given god. It falls out the following train of logic:
1.) Someone says the universe was created by the Big Bang, and that they don't have to explain anything else. In particular they claim they don't have to say what caused the Big Bang. |
Completely wrong. They have to explain how the big-bang led to the universe as we perceive it today. They have to fit the theory to the observable facts - such as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the observations of the Hubble constant and much more. It's not simply a case of saying 'there was a big bang' and leaving it at that. This is why later developments have been made, such as inflation theory.
It is true that current theory does not claim to account for what went 'before' the BB. The traditional explanation is that 'before' has no meaning since space-time was created at the instant of the BB and, therefore, there was, and could be, nothing 'before'. Some theories seek to challenge this - String/M theory, for example. The fact remains, however, that BB theory, supplemented by inflation theory, remains a rigorous explanation of the observable universe and any alternative theory needs to be subjected to the same rigorous challenges that apply to the current model. | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
This just isn't the case. Communism was developed by Karl Marx based on his social observations. Millions world wide took to it, mostly educated people in the lead, students and professionals. Yet, we see now that the system doesn't really work. Further, it was hijacked and used better than any religion in history to CONTROL people. |
This is wrong. Communism predates Marx by centuries. In the Middle ages many religious communities were essentially communist and it can be argued that Thomas More's 'Utopia' is a communist manifesto.
Marx himself joined the Communist league well before his later writings....
|
I think it's fairly obvious I was referring to modern Communism, which is not 'Communism' at all, and not communal hippy farms, not that it has anything to do with it being a damaging and dangerous non-religious philosophy.
My use of the word 'Communism' above was for the benefit of those who give it credibility. If you want to hear if in my own mind it comes with sarcasm. Replace it with 'Socialist Republic' if you want. You can call a farm, a family, or a Boyscout troop Communist but that's obviously not what I meant. Is it your intention to ignore the main subject of these discussions and focus on small points like this?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
Nazism was also developed by observation and proof by educated moral people, yet it brought the world to the most devastating conflict history has ever known and proactively ans systematically attempted to exterminate an entire population of a certain people. |
Nazism was not developed by observation and proof. It was thrown together by various German politicians after the Treaty of Versailles and represents a mishmash of ideologies and beliefs. It was never a coherent, rational social philosophy and was certainly not based on scientific method. |
You can say that now.... of course. If you lived in 1938 Germany you understand Nazism to be a philosophy of creating a perfect society definitely based on observation and science. If the Nazis had won, you might have learned in school how the great leader rescued the planet from disease and corruption. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| My use of the word 'Communism' above was for the benefit of those who give it credibility. If you want to hear if in my own mind it comes with sarcasm. Replace it with 'Socialist Republic' if you want. You can call a farm, a family, or a Boyscout troop Communist but that's obviously not what I meant. Is it your intention to ignore the main subject of these discussions and focus on small points like this? |
It is my intention to pick up on incorrect and fallacious points when they are used as support for a wider point of debate, yes.
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Nazism was also developed by observation and proof by educated moral people, yet it brought the world to the most devastating conflict history has ever known and proactively ans systematically attempted to exterminate an entire population of a certain people. |
Nazism was not developed by observation and proof. It was thrown together by various German politicians after the Treaty of Versailles and represents a mishmash of ideologies and beliefs. It was never a coherent, rational social philosophy and was certainly not based on scientific method. |
You can say that now.... of course. If you lived in 1938 Germany you understand Nazism to be a philosophy of creating a perfect society definitely based on observation and science. If the Nazis had won, you might have learned in school how the great leader rescued the planet from disease and corruption. |
Hardly the same as maintaining that Nazism was developed by observation and proof - it just plain wasn't. | Bikerman wrote: |
| It is my intention to pick up on incorrect and fallacious points when they are used as support for a wider point of debate, yes. |
Try to make sure you understand the point before you decide it's incorrect. It's annoying having to explain every other fact I roll over. Instead of attacking things you misunderstand - WRONG - try just asking to expand on the point or do your own research.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Hardly the same as maintaining that Nazism was developed by observation and proof - it just plain wasn't. |
It just plain was.
Observation:
Jews making money and prospering while German people suffer in poverty.
Jews must be taking Germany's wealth.
Sick and crippled people are not productive.
France and Belgium are on German ancestral land.
'Fact'
Removing the Jews will allow Germany to keep her wealth.
Breeding only healthy people will produce only healthy people.
Lets get back our land
Conclusion
We must purify the superior German race.
Get ride of the Jew and other foreigners.
Get back our homeland.
Then we will prosper.
No less valid than many ideas including Communism or Democracy. In the past century we have seem philosophies not based on Gods. They have been based on the new explanation, science. Saying, "Because science says so," is no less dangerous than, "Because God says so." It comes down to the motivation of the authority.
Actually, scientific motivation could be worse. A society needs to be fairly illiterate or ignorant to follow crazy clerics. An educated society, such as Germany or Russia, will follow and authority based on his science. The Nazis knew what they were doing was wrong. They told themselves it was the price to be payed for a better world. They weren't just savage killers.... | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | It is my intention to pick up on incorrect and fallacious points when they are used as support for a wider point of debate, yes. |
Try to make sure you understand the point before you decide it's incorrect. It's annoying having to explain every other fact I roll over. Instead of attacking things you misunderstand - WRONG - try just asking to expand on the point or do your own research. |
There is no misunderstanding. Communism was not developed by Karl Marx - simple fact. I accept the clarification you made in the subsequent posting as largely correct, and, indeed, the clarification/correction is the reason I pointed out the error in your original posting. The use of words in philosophy is important if we are to avoid Humpty-Dumpty syndrome.*
If it annoys you when I pick-up on examples which I feel are misleading or incorrect, then I'll just have to live with your annoyance and try not to let it spoil my day.
*"When I use a word", said Humpty-Dumpty, "it means just what I chose it to mean. Neither more nor less".
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
Hardly the same as maintaining that Nazism was developed by observation and proof - it just plain wasn't. |
It just plain was.
|
Once again the problem is the words you use. Proof can be regarded as 'demonstration of correctness', and is certainly not the same as vague conclusions based on questionable 'facts'. Nazism was a politically ideology rooted in expediency and consisting of a mix of mysticism and populist rhetoric, given a veneer of 'respectability' by tacking-on references to Hegel and Nietzsche. It was never based on proper observation and certainly not the result of 'proof' of any sort. | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | It is my intention to pick up on incorrect and fallacious points when they are used as support for a wider point of debate, yes. |
Try to make sure you understand the point before you decide it's incorrect. It's annoying having to explain every other fact I roll over. Instead of attacking things you misunderstand - WRONG - try just asking to expand on the point or do your own research. |
There is no misunderstanding. Communism was not developed by Karl Marx - simple fact. I accept the clarification you made in the subsequent posting as largely correct, and, indeed, the clarification/correction is the reason I pointed out the error in your original posting. The use of words in philosophy is important if we are to avoid Humpty-Dumpty syndrome.*
If it annoys you when I pick-up on examples which I feel are misleading or incorrect, then I'll just have to live with your annoyance and try not to let it spoil my day.
|
You could ask for clarification rather than using WRONG. It was obvious in its context. you might argue that all happy people aren't attracted to the same sex when I say "two gay men." Likewise you could become similarly confused if i called a certain group Republicans is you attached its literal, non-monarch definition. Asking a question doesn't mean you're stupid, causing these collateral posts does.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Bikerman wrote: |
Hardly the same as maintaining that Nazism was developed by observation and proof - it just plain wasn't. |
It just plain was.
|
Once again the problem is the words you use. Proof can be regarded as 'demonstration of correctness', and is certainly not the same as vague conclusions based on questionable 'facts'. Nazism was a politically ideology rooted in expediency and consisting of a mix of mysticism and populist rhetoric, given a veneer of 'respectability' by tacking-on references to Hegel and Nietzsche. It was never based on proper observation and certainly not the result of 'proof' of any sort. |
Thus, there is no 'proof' or 'fact.'
The Nazis' proof was demonstrated based on accepted facts. Outside of their society, with hindsight and improved science, you can find fault in their proof and facts, just as others in the future will find fault in yours. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
You could ask for clarification rather than using WRONG. It was obvious in its context. you might argue that all happy people aren't attracted to the same sex when I say "two gay men." Likewise you could become similarly confused if i called a certain group Republicans is you attached its literal, non-monarch definition. Asking a question doesn't mean you're stupid, causing these collateral posts does. |
Yes, I am aware that you think I'm stupid. I don't share the same opinion of you, however. I simply think that you over-generalise, express yourself imprecisely and sometimes give the impression that your opinions are accepted wisdom and that critics are therefore either stupid or badly informed.
If a point is demonstrably wrong then the correct thing to do is to point out the fallacy, not seek development of it. I'll agree that to do so with every minor point of expression is both pedantic and unhelpful to debate - which is why I do not do so. I only pick on points which are important to the argument being made. If you think this makes me stupid then, again, it's something I can live with.
| Quote: |
| The Nazis' proof was demonstrated based on accepted facts. Outside of their society, with hindsight and improved science, you can find fault in their proof and facts, just as others in the future will find fault in yours. |
The Nazis offered no proofs. The 'facts' which underly Nazism were not accepted, even in their own time.
Since you offer the example of anti-semitism let's develop it.
The anti-semitism of Nazism did not originate with financial jealousy but with the mysticism of the Volkisch movement. The objection was that the semitic race could not be absorbed into the Aryan master race because Jews tended to marry within their own religion.
The latter point is, indeed, a 'fact' - Jews did tend to marry within the Jewish faith.* The underpinning 'rationale' or hypothesis, however, is that the Aryan race was superior to other racial types. This was not at the time an 'accepted fact' (as for 'proof' - the 1936 Olympics offered some quite compelling refutation of the hypothesis).
Hitler's own belief about Aryan superiority was based in mysticism, not rational observation, and it was justified in religious terms, not scientific 'proofs'. As he wrote in Mein Kampf | Adolf Hitler wrote: |
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." |
*Before 1965, 90% of Jews who married, did so within the faith.Read some history of the time. Hitler didn't come to power within a couple years because Germany thought he knew God. He had ideas that made sense, according to proof and facts that THEY accepted. I'm not talking about possible origins of a believe.
Didn't mean to call you stupid. In this case, the critic often confuses accepted facts with my opinion.
Hitler came to power because he was a demagogue and because he really did some good things, he built factories, highways etc. the only problem was that he was a dictator and that he really was a bad person.
Later on someone did an experiment called the wave . This proved that a leader with the right charisma could make his followers do anything. There is an interesting article on Hitler's rise to power here:
http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/hitler.html Wow, this thread has taken off in an interesting direction. Sorry I took so long to respond, I saved half of my reply and then got distracted by finals and whatnot.
| Indi wrote: |
| None of what i said has anything to do with east or west, or how you conceive of any given god. It falls out the following train of logic: |
I was responding to the words "God thought." In order for God to think, it has to have a personality (in other words, it ceases to be all-encompassing), and while I understand that you were responding to a Christian notion of god, it's nonetheless a very limited conception of deity.
| Quote: |
Following from that, i explained why the person in 2 is wrong. Unless God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism, then the same argument the person in 1 used doesn't apply. And if God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism... then how is it any different from the Big Bang? |
There's no reason god has to be different from the Big Bang. God can absolutely be a dumb, mindless mechanism. God is a symbol, often a personification, of existence. If the Big Bang represents existence in its ultimate form, then that's God.
| Quote: |
But you go right back around and make the same mistake again - you say: "We have no idea what came before the Big Bang, if anything..." That is not technically correct. We don't know everythig about the Big Bang, sure... but what we do know tells us that there is no before. So we do have an idea of what came before the Big Bang... nothing. That may sound counterintuitive and hard to imagine, but so is most of quantum mechanics, and we know that's relatively correct.
So, no, what you say is not correct. We have not shifted the reference anywhere - we have discovered, assuming that what we know about the Big Bang so far is correct, what the answer is. It's just not an easy answer to swallow. If you say "but something might have come before", you're no longer talking about the Big Bang, at least not as science talks about it. |
My point had little to do with time. It can easily be rephrased: We don't know why the Big Bang occurred, or why anything should exist at all. There is a limit to our knowledge, and yet we seek an understanding of existence in its ultimate form. If the Big Bang occurred according to physical laws, even physical laws which it proceeded to radically alter, why were there physical laws in the first place? Why is there matter, why is there anything at all? It doesn't matter what the answer is. The search for the root of being is inspired by the same spirit, whether it leads you to use scientific methods to measure observable phenomena, or follow an inward path.
| Quote: |
The two questions are not parallel - not in the least. God, in every religion, is based on human understanding ... Every description of God hinges on human understanding. In other words, everything we know about any conception of God you choose has come to us via a human mind ... Maybe those writers were divinely inspired, but they had to describe what they were told using human languages. Maybe you do have a personal connection to the divine through your link with nature, but you're still processing that connection with a human mind. Therefore, everything we know about God is limited by human understanding. And there is no way, given our human understanding, that something can have no cause. Therefore God, assuming he is as religion X describes, requires a cause. You can pick any religion for X.
The Big Bang, on the other hand, is described by science, which is not defined by human intellect, but rather by observing nature. Several times over the ages, especially in the last century, we have had to adapt our intellect to match our observations. There is no reason that it has to make sense that nothing caused the Big Bang. It just is (as far as we know), and we'll have to adapt our understanding of the universe to grasp that fact. |
Well first, in many traditions God is explicitly stated to be the first cause, the uncreated creating principle - I'm not sure exactly where you were going with that bit though. Isn't it counterintuitive to apply laws of cause and effect to something that is described as transcendent?
Anyway, this general argument does not make sense. You cannot, on one hand, say that our description of God hinges on human understanding, and then on the other, claim that our descriptions of nature do not. Science as a method does not, but we're not talking about method, we're talking about interpretations and conclusions. (Religion as a method also does not hinge on understanding - a properly religous experience is more accurately described as rapturous or ecstatic. Only in drawing conclusions and communicating them to others will the sort of human understanding you describe come into play). The leap from "as far as we know" to "there was no before," "it just is," is - you guessed it - based on human understanding. Our scientific cosmology is nothing more than a product of the human mind's ability to order and analyze data. All we know is that anything before the Big Bang would either conform to our theories (or possibly future theories, once more data is collected) or be completely beyond our comprehension and our ability to collect data.
Again, the methods and conclusions are totally different, but the essential question ("Why is there anything at all?") is what I believe to be the common motive driving the scientist to research and experiment on one hand, and the shaman to visualize and meditate and dance on the other. They're just two ways of being human. Maybe I'm getting a little too fundamental though. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
Indeed, a philosophy based on observation, with regard to governing a state, is superior to a religious philosophy, but it is no less dangerous.
You have it backwards. I didn't decide on day that anti-religious people were wrong, arbitrarily. I've looked the arguments, and they are flawed. Blaming crusades and jihads on religions is not valid. Religion was simply used as a mechanism for motivating people onto a particular factions side.
Communism, and Democracy are both philosophies based on social observation. Neither works despite the creator's proof or observation. Nazism is also based on observation and 'proof.' Electroshock therapy, considering lesbians mentally ill, and applying leaches were also based on observation and 'proof.'
I'm not saying science is no better than religion. Science is what we have and I believe it extremely important to develop. However, science will never be enough. It will never fill the hunger every human society had shown to find a connection with its creator. Science can't replace religion, despite efforts of atheists, who are also following a religion, a religion that sees the creator as forces created by unknown forces. Unknown - Big-bang - evolution.
Regardless, and back to my point, any philosophy can be dangerous regardless of its validity. I determine this simply from history. You might say more people will rally to a valid philosophy or that an educated philosophy based on observation and proof is safer because it will determine harming people is wrong.
This just isn't the case. Communism was developed by Karl Marx based on his social observations. Millions world wide took to it, mostly educated people in the lead, students and professionals. Yet, we see now that the system doesn't really work. Further, it was hijacked and used better than any religion in history to CONTROL people.
Nazism was also developed by observation and proof by educated moral people, yet it brought the world to the most devastating conflict history has ever known and proactively ans systematically attempted to exterminate an entire population of a certain people.
Perhaps a valid philosophy is more dangerous? What better way to justify your actions than to point to your proof and observations. |
i'm sorry, you're going to have to clarify what you mean by dangerous here. ^_^;
Because reading what you have written, you seem to be saying that a belief based on reason is just as "dangerous" as a belief that i just made up on the spot. In fact, you even go the extra loopy mile and suggest that it might be more dangerous... and claim that it is the evidence that makes it dangerous. ^_^;
Now, before i go any further dismantling any of that post, i have to get confirmation that that is really what you mean. Is that really a position you are prepared to take? And... do you really believe it is a defensible position?
| eggg wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | None of what i said has anything to do with east or west, or how you conceive of any given god. It falls out the following train of logic: |
I was responding to the words "God thought." In order for God to think, it has to have a personality (in other words, it ceases to be all-encompassing), and while I understand that you were responding to a Christian notion of god, it's nonetheless a very limited conception of deity. |
"Thought" in this context does not imply personality or personhood. All it implies is a process of decision-making. Computers "think" in the sense that come to conclusions by processing data in certain ways. There's no consciousness or personality, but it decides when to spin the hard drive.
A god that created the universe did something at the moment of creation that caused creation to happen (could be slightly before creation that the deed was done, too, but let's not open that door). Unless the god is a mindless physical process of the universe, like gravitational interaction for example, or creation was an unplanned accident, then that god must have decided before doing the creation deed to do that deed.
Personality, individuality, or even intelligence are not required. All that is required is thought. Could be the intelligent, self-directed thinking of a personal god as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, or it could be the more mechanistic, reactionary "thinking" of some traditional Sino-Indian or Eastern traditions.
Regardless of the characteristics you give the god, if you say the god was responsible for the creation of the universe, then you automatically introduce the concept of causation. To put it another way, how can a god be responsible for something it didn't cause (directly or indirectly)? And now that you've given the god the ability to cause, you have made it necessary for cause and effect to exist before the big bang, or rather, outside of the universe itself. That is contrary to saying cause and effect were created by the big bang within the universe, which the current scientific model (most of them, anyway) does.
| eggg wrote: |
| Quote: |
Following from that, i explained why the person in 2 is wrong. Unless God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism, then the same argument the person in 1 used doesn't apply. And if God is a dumb, mindless, natural mechanism... then how is it any different from the Big Bang? |
There's no reason god has to be different from the Big Bang. God can absolutely be a dumb, mindless mechanism. God is a symbol, often a personification, of existence. If the Big Bang represents existence in its ultimate form, then that's God. |
If God is simply anthropomorphizing the Big Bang, then God is not responsible for creation, but rather a by-product of it. Which is fine if that's the conception of God you want to go with, but most religions would find that position untenable.
The Big Bang was not the cause of creation, it was simply the way it happened. Using the current language of science, there was no cause of creation, because the entire concept of cause and effect was created with the universe. i know that sounds... wrong. And i know that it's totally counter-intuitive, but that's what all we know points to. The choice is frankly accept the result and try to think with that framework, as difficult and bizarre as it might appear, or deny the science. Assuming you choose to work within the framework, and equating the Big Bang with God, then God was not responsible for creation, and so we owe it nothing. Not even a thank you.
| eggg wrote: |
| My point had little to do with time. It can easily be rephrased: We don't know why the Big Bang occurred, or why anything should exist at all. There is a limit to our knowledge, and yet we seek an understanding of existence in its ultimate form. If the Big Bang occurred according to physical laws, even physical laws which it proceeded to radically alter, why were there physical laws in the first place? Why is there matter, why is there anything at all? It doesn't matter what the answer is. The search for the root of being is inspired by the same spirit, whether it leads you to use scientific methods to measure observable phenomena, or follow an inward path. |
Even your rephrasing is falling into the same trap. "We don't know why the Big Bang occurred, or why anything should exist at all." You're still not letting go of our four-dimensional, causal way of thinking. All that we know suggests that that thinking no longer applies at creation. What you are doing is the equivalent of applying Newtonian mechanics to a problem that requires general relativity.
As soon as you say "why did X happen", you put yourself into a framework of causation. "Why" requires a "because". Let my highlight that for you: "because".
i can't answer your questions because they are wrong. They don't apply. They are using a framework that we know does not exist where you are trying to apply it. You can ask "where did X come from" or "why does the universe have Y" where X and Y are as abstract as you like (physical laws, or whatever you like), and these questions are certainly valid up to a point. But then they become nonsense. For instance, you can say "where do the physical laws come from", and i can answer "they came out of the big bang" (which is the truth). You can even challenge me to outline exactly how the big bang constructed those laws, and i can answer that question (well, science can, anyway). But eventually you will come to a point where causality breaks down. And when you do that, all of these questions make no more sense. What made things the way they were such that the big bang caused the universe to be the way it is? You might as well ask me the angle between the line segments of a circle. All i can do is shrug, not because i don't know the answer, but because the question is nonsense.
And no matter how many linguistic tricks you try, the result will be the same. If you buy the scientific explanation, then any talk of cause, reason or what came before is drivel.
| eggg wrote: |
| Well first, in many traditions God is explicitly stated to be the first cause, the uncreated creating principle - I'm not sure exactly where you were going with that bit though. Isn't it counterintuitive to apply laws of cause and effect to something that is described as transcendent? |
Not when that thing is clearly following the laws of cause and effect. Though you may have taken the "thing" (specifically, the god) out of the universe, and hence out of time within the universe, you're still giving it the property of causation.
How? i dunno. It's not my god. ^_^; The whole concept makes no sense to me. Maybe there's an external, divine time dimension? i dunno. Regardless, if this transcendent being (or "thing") caused something, then it is clearly working within the framework of causality.
It's a conundrum you're going to have to solve if you want to work your way out of this jam. If you say God (or anything) was responsible for creation, then you are saying that God is subject to causality even outside of the universe. So causality does not require the universe itself to be valid. Which means that asking "what caused God" is a valid question, because we know that causality applies to God. In fact, God requires causality to make sense (at least to make sense as the creator, anyway). So the question is not only valid, it's pretty much required for completeness.
On the flip side, asking what caused the Big Bang is not a valid question, because we know (according to science) that causality does not apply before the Big Bang - not simply because we say it doesn't, but because the framework just doesn't allow for it. So asking "what caused the Big Bang" is not a valid question, because the Big Bang disallows causality. The question is invalid.
| eggg wrote: |
Anyway, this general argument does not make sense. You cannot, on one hand, say that our description of God hinges on human understanding, and then on the other, claim that our descriptions of nature do not. Science as a method does not, but we're not talking about method, we're talking about interpretations and conclusions. (Religion as a method also does not hinge on understanding - a properly religous experience is more accurately described as rapturous or ecstatic. Only in drawing conclusions and communicating them to others will the sort of human understanding you describe come into play). The leap from "as far as we know" to "there was no before," "it just is," is - you guessed it - based on human understanding. Our scientific cosmology is nothing more than a product of the human mind's ability to order and analyze data. All we know is that anything before the Big Bang would either conform to our theories (or possibly future theories, once more data is collected) or be completely beyond our comprehension and our ability to collect data.
Again, the methods and conclusions are totally different, but the essential question ("Why is there anything at all?") is what I believe to be the common motive driving the scientist to research and experiment on one hand, and the shaman to visualize and meditate and dance on the other. They're just two ways of being human. Maybe I'm getting a little too fundamental though. |
On the contrary, i can so make the claim that religion is a slave to human understanding while science is not. ^_^ And the justification for that claim is the fact that the methods are totally different.
Observe:
Assume that the universe is beyond current human understanding - beyond even the wildest of conception possible by the human brain. Is this possible? Sure. Why not? It would be unfortunate, but it's certainly not impossible. And it's not only possible, it's even likely that we will make observations that we cannot wrap our minds around... but are nonetheless true. Take quantum mechanics for example. We can describe it, and even model it, but even experts in the field say that no human mind can completely think in a quantum mechanical fashion. But anyone, anywhere, any time can see these things that are beyond our conception, even if we cannot conceive of them. You can almost literally watch tunnelling happen... but you can't conceive of being in two or more places at the same time. Nature does not follow human understanding, human understanding - hopefully - follows nature.
Now, assume that god is beyond current human understanding. Is this possible? Sure. But! We can't observe god. The best we can do is take one of two paths:
- Attempt to use logic and reason to imagine what god might be like.
- Listen to the explanation given by a person who can observe god (a prophet, for example).
Case 1: If you use human intellect to try to imagine what god might be like, your conception will be limited by human intellect. Simple.
Case 2: Let's suppose our prophet has actually had their mind expanded so that they can think beyond the limitations of normal humans and truly and correctly conceive of God. All fine and good. But eventually, that prophet has to share that conception with other humans, using human communication (writing or speech for example). Human communication will be limited by human intellect, because we can't create a form of communication that is greater than our understanding. Therefore, even if the prophet grasps a higher order of understanding, no one who gets his message will - the medium of transmission will limit the message's content, and thus the communication's effectiveness. Therefore, once again, the final product - the general understanding of god - is limited by human intellect.
You see? In science, it doesn't matter if our minds are incapable of conceiving of a thing happening. We can observe it happening nonetheless, and we simply have to accept that that's what happens. In religion, we would never even have the option of any observation, and so everything we understand about god must be limited by human intellect.
And that, really is the core of the problem you face. Yes, i know nothing makes sense without causality. Normally, i would question whether it was sane to ditch it. But what we have observed about the universe tells us that we must dismiss causality at the moment of creation. It doesn't matter if your mind can't wrap around it, nature has told us it is so.
By contrast, all conceptions of god that have anything to do with creation are limited by human intellect, and, one way or another, will fall back on causality because that is all our human intellect can understand - as you have done with each reformulation of your questions.
Maybe if our minds were expanded to the point were we could actually grasp the idea of a universe without causality, then i could answer your questions about what "caused" the Big Bang in a more complete and sensible way. Or... maybe i'll still give the same answers, but now you will understand what they mean and why. ^_^; Who knows? For now, here's the facts as science knows them: causation requires a temporal dimension... all dimensions, temporal and otherwise, are products of creation... therefore we cannot talk about causation with creation. ... ... ... unless you introduce a new factor that is subject to causality and not a product of creation... like a creator god. In which case, you're screwed. ^_^;We are far away from the question in this post
First do you all agree that Humans created God?
only then we can answer the next question as to why humans created God
Why are we excluding other living beings
are we approaching the answer to these question within the confines of Human perception only or are we taking into consideration that even for example Dogs have their own Gods?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
We are far away from the question in this post
First do you all agree that Humans created God?
only then we can answer the next question as to why humans created God
Why are we excluding other living beings
are we approaching the answer to these question within the confines of Human perception only or are we taking into consideration that even for example Dogs have their own Gods? |
You would have to be even more reductive to consider this question adequately. First you would have to agree a definition for 'God'. Would the Sun, for example, count as a God? Would elemental forces count as Gods? If we use a commonly held definition for God * | Quote: |
| A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. |
then I think the answer to the question "did humans create God" is yes.
As to whether other species have a concept of God, there is obviously no way to know this and, without empirical evidence, the question is moot.
* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/godI have been reading through some of the answers in this forum, and I cannot believe half of what you are saying. Just glancing at most of them makes me want to ask you guys(and girls): Why do you insist that man created God? Why do you deny His existence? Is it because if you did accept that God is that you would have to be held accountable for your actions, that you wouldn't be the boss over your own self? If that is what you believe, then you are sadly mistaken. Whether you see it or not is your own choice, but regardless, you will be judged for your actions and ignorance when God judges us all. On that day, anyone who doesn't have a relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ will go to Hell, believe it or not. I don't want that fate for any of you, but it is your choice really. If you want to believe something, fine. Just make sure you are believing the right thing.
God Bless! LOL...your concern is touching but really unnecessary. Most of us have opinions based on many years of thinking about these issues and are probably more familiar with the arguments than you appear to be. Nobody is asking you to believe anything - that's the beauty of science.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs - I don't think anybody here is saying differently - but to come out with the statement "Just make sure you believe the right thing" strikes some of us (including me) as arrogant and rather silly.
If you want to join the debate then you are welcome. If, on the other hand, you simply wish to declare your own beliefs then you are not really adding to the debate since I'm fairly sure that everyone in this debate is well versed in basic Christian beliefs, including the rather 'fundamental' version of Christianity that you seem to espouse.
We really do not need a simple re-statement of your beliefs - why not just assume that we know what you believe and that some of us do not share those beliefs. If you then want to join the debate by making genuine contributions then feel free, but if you are just going to say "I believe such and such and everyone who doesn't is wrong and will burn in hell" then I'd ask you politely to leave the debate to those with something to say.
Because he needs someone superior that he is, because it’s easier to believe that someone is watching you and will help you. Because people need to believe in miracles when life gets too difficult.
| Bikerman wrote: |
LOL...your concern is touching but really unnecessary. Most of us have opinions based on many years of thinking about these issues and are probably more familiar with the arguments than you appear to be. Nobody is asking you to believe anything - that's the beauty of science.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs - I don't think anybody here is saying differently - but to come out with the statement "Just make sure you believe the right thing" strikes some of us (including me) as arrogant and rather silly.
If you want to join the debate then you are welcome. If, on the other hand, you simply wish to declare your own beliefs then you are not really adding to the debate since I'm fairly sure that everyone in this debate is well versed in basic Christian beliefs, including the rather 'fundamental' version of Christianity that you seem to espouse.
We really do not need a simple re-statement of your beliefs - why not just assume that we know what you believe and that some of us do not share those beliefs. If you then want to join the debate by making genuine contributions then feel free, but if you are just going to say "I believe such and such and everyone who doesn't is wrong and will burn in hell" then I'd ask you politely to leave the debate to those with something to say. |
That was a very good reply but let me tell a harsh one too hope aames_prov356 is not offended
but like Bike said aames_prov356 has a lot pf places in frihost to talk about his/her beliefI don't believe it was harsh. I believe it was fair, civil and accurate.
simple answer to thread's question: it was the other way around 
i think that it was more than just civil reply, just for the record.
You know, if you didn't notice, I did happen to say that it was fine to believe what you want to believe. ANd that find some other place to state my beliefs, thing... if you didn't notice WE ARE IN A DISCUSSION ON RELIGION!!!! If you don't want to hear my point of view, don't even join this part of the board at all!!!!
i think half-no all of what you have written in response to my post is rather arrogant as if your system of beliefs is any better than mine.
As you said... "everyone is entitled to their own beliefs." I am entitled the right to have mine as you are yours. I also have the equal right to state the way I believe, just as you have, | Quote: |
| "so your point is?" |
| Quote: |
"then I'd ask you politely to leave the debate to those with something to say." |
I do have something to say... you just don't want to hear it.
How can you seriously put your faith in evolution and all those kinds of beliefs, but cannot believe that God is? Just a thought. oh one more thing
| Quote: |
| "Most of us have opinions based on years of thinking about these issues and are probably more familiar with the arguments than you appear to be." |
Just so you know, I have had plenty of time to think about what I believe and why I believe it.
I believe that the BIble, in its entirety to be the complete truth. Why? The Bible was written over a course of thousands of years, with gaps of hundreds of years between many of the books, yet it is consistent. How is this possible if it is untruthful? | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| i think that it was more than just civil reply, just for the record. |
It was perfectly civil. I did not use insulting or denigrating language. | Quote: |
| You know, if you didn't notice, I did happen to say that it was fine to believe what you want to believe. ANd that find some other place to state my beliefs, thing... if you didn't notice WE ARE IN A DISCUSSION ON RELIGION!!!! If you don't want to hear my point of view, don't even join this part of the board at all!!!! |
Firstly the board is religion AND philosophy. Secondly you didn't just say it's fine to believe what you want, did you? What you said was | Quote: |
| If you want to believe something, fine. Just make sure you are believing the right thing. |
which is not quite the same thing is it? I know what your point of view is, and I think everyone else probably does as well - you are a Christian of the more fundamental type, so you believe literally in the Bible. This is not a thread which is asking for a statement of your faith, it is asking for a consideration of why Man created God. If you have something to contribute then fine but simply stating your faith is not really a contribution. If you want to simply state what you believe and discuss it then why not start another thread on that, instead of hijacking this discussion? | Quote: |
| i think half-no all of what you have written in response to my post is rather arrogant as if your system of beliefs is any better than mine. |
I have no system of beliefs in that sense. That is the difference between us. I am an atheist - I don't believe in God. | Quote: |
| As you said... "everyone is entitled to their own beliefs." I am entitled the right to have mine as you are yours. I also have the equal right to state the way I believe, just as you have |
Of course you do, but I haven't stated any beliefs about God since I don't have any. I have just debated the issue in question. | Quote: |
| I do have something to say... you just don't want to hear it. |
All you have said is what you believe. You provide no support for this (other than to say it's in the bible and therefore true) and have made no new points or contributions. | Quote: |
| How can you seriously put your faith in evolution and all those kinds of beliefs, but cannot believe that God is? Just a thought. |
I have no 'faith' in evolution in the same way that I have no 'faith' that I am currently sat at a keyboard typing. You only need faith when there is doubt about the point in question. There is no real doubt about evolution therefore I don't need to 'believe it', it simply is.
You don't really understand evolutionary theory and to criticise something you don't understand not very wise.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:45 pm; edited 5 times in total | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| I believe that the BIble, in its entirety to be the complete truth. Why? The Bible was written over a course of thousands of years, with gaps of hundreds of years between many of the books, yet it is consistent. How is this possible if it is untruthful? |
So you believe the Universe was created in 6 days and you think there are no contradictions in that?
As for being consistent....the inconsistencies in the Bible are numerous and have been dealt with in other threads.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.htmlThose contradictions were cleared in the Quran...
| Quote: |
| Of course you do, but I haven't stated any beliefs about God since I don't have any. |
Actually, you kind of have.
| Quote: |
| I am an atheist - I don't believe in God. |
Yes, I do believe that the earth was created in 6 days (one day of rest -which you forgot.)
There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. You only believe that there are because you don't understand the text very well. I have ben going to church as well as reading the Bible for my entire life. I think that I know and understand quite a bit more about Biblical facts and philosophies than you do. Take note of this example: Jesus. He fulfilled every prophecy that was written about "the coming Messiah" in the old testament. There are over 60! What is the probablity of that? It would be like finding a needle in a hay stack that spanned the entire world! And you tell me that the Bible is not consistent.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
Yes, I do believe that the earth was created in 6 days (one day of rest -which you forgot.)
There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. You only believe that there are because you don't understand the text very well. I have ben going to church as well as reading the Bible for my entire life. I think that I know and understand quite a bit more about Biblical facts and philosophies than you do. Take note of this example: Jesus. He fulfilled every prophecy that was written about "the coming Messiah" in the old testament. There are over 60! What is the probablity of that? It would be like finding a needle in a hay stack that spanned the entire world! And you tell me that the Bible is not consistent. |
As I said, this is not the place for this discussion. If you want to discuss bible inconsistencies, then start a new thread and I will be happy to contribute (based on many years of reading the Bible, 4 years of theology classes and a Catholic upbringing and education).no, I don't think I will start a new thread, because no matter how much truth I put out there, I simply cannot get it past your thick skull. good luck. maybe-no you will- understnad one day.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
| no, I don't think I will start a new thread, because no matter how much truth I put out there, I simply cannot get it past your thick skull. good luck. maybe-no you will- understnad one day. |
Now that's not very civil of you is it?No, it wasn't very civil, nor very christian of me to say what I did yesterday, and I apologize for it. Even though I was very angry at your arrogance, and the fact that you were making a mockery of my faith, I should not have said what I did. Sorry again. 
God Bless! (Even though you don't believe in Him) | aames_prov356 wrote: |
No, it wasn't very civil, nor very christian of me to say what I did yesterday, and I apologize for it. Even though I was very angry at your arrogance, and the fact that you were making a mockery of my faith, I should not have said what I did. Sorry again.
God Bless! (Even though you don't believe in Him) |
Your apology is accepted unreservedly. I would also like to say that I was not seeking to mock your faith. I do not share your faith and I come at the problem of existence from the standpoint of science. I find some parts of your beliefs to be in direct conflict with science, and I therefore seek to challenge those parts of that belief.
There are many areas where science and religion do NOT overlap and in those areas I do not seek to challenge the belief in question. There are, however, some areas in some faiths which conflict with scientific understanding and here I do challenge them. The obvious example is the Genesis account of creation which is completely incompatible (when considered literally) with modern science.
That is not to say that I mock your beliefs, just that I disagree with them and think that they can be challenged from a scientific viewpoint. I try to use moderate and considered language when challenging beliefs like this and it is never my intent to cause offence.So my knowelege of modern science isn't as in detail as yours, but you have to understand that you are prob quite a bit older than I am.
I will look into it, and I will be back with stronger arguments
Until then | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| So my knowelege of modern science isn't as in detail as yours, but you have to understand that you are prob quite a bit older than I am. |
Almost certainly. I am 46.
| Quote: |
| I will look into it, and I will be back with stronger arguments |
Excellent.You have it basackwads. God created us.
How could God all these atrocities let happen?
Religion itself has a clear evolution of concept which has always, primarily been a way of explaining the unknown. Then came the insertion of morals so as to instil into people a desire to do the right thing. Even if those apparently philanthropist acts have ultimately selfish motives.
There used to be a great many gods. Ones that controlled every aspect of the world around them. Even gods of waterfalls and the grass, the sun and so forth. As time wore on, these gods became combined into more significant aspects of life such as war, love and so forth.
As peoples' understanding of the world improved these then became amalgamated into a single deity responsible for creating everything. As peoples' understanding continues to improve, 'god' becomes responsible for less and less in their eyes. Eventually a point will be reached where this god didn't actually do anything at all. But even then you'll probably have a few people clinging to their faith.
| Quote: |
| Almost certainly. I am 46. |
I wouldn't have guessed!THat wasnt an insult. Sorry. I just thought how that might sound. Actually, it was a compliment. | Quote: |
| You have it basackwads. God created us. |
I agree. And like I told Bikerman, I will be back with solid scientific and philosophical proof to back it. I already have a great deal to start with (staying up late at night reading does wonders), but I want to be fully prepared.
God Bless!!!! | aames_prov356 wrote: |
| Quote: | | Almost certainly. I am 46. |
I wouldn't have guessed! |
Neither would have I!People created god (or multiple gods to be more precise) because they didn't understand nature. Each atribute of nature had his own god. When people started to understand more they only needed one god. So they created him to counter their fears and things they did not understand.
| aames_prov356 wrote: |
] | Quote: | | You have it basackwads. God created us. |
I agree. And like I told Bikerman, I will be back with solid scientific and philosophical proof to back it. I already have a great deal to start with (staying |