Information

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Wonder Man
Do you think Information will lead towards God?
I think it will. I think the more we learn the more we require less proof of His existance.

Shakyamunison
I think the opposite. The more we learn the less of God there is.

Shabazz916
i think there is a creator... but not the way anyone on this earth portrays it

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
i think there is a creator... but not the way anyone on this earth portrays it

Would that include you? wink

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Would that include you? wink

yes im sure there but nothing anyone

Star428
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Do you think Information will lead towards God?
I think it will. I think the more we learn the more we require less proof of His existance.


There is already ironclad proof of God's existence. It's called "creation".

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Star428
There is already ironclad proof of God's existence. It's called "creation".

i believe in god but not any religions that are practiced if that makes sense

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Star428
There is already ironclad proof of God's existence. It's called "creation".

Now all you have to do is prove that there was a creation. Good luck, because you will need it.

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Shabazz916
i believe in god but not any religions that are practiced if that makes sense
This is my belief as well.

It's called 'agnostic theism', if I'm not mistaken.

But my belief leans more to 'fideism' -- that faith brings about the good in people.

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now all you have to do is prove that there was a creation. Good luck, because you will need it. well unless a explosion of nothing brings about everything we have proof

Mindship
Originally posted by Wonder Man
Do you think Information will lead towards God?
I think it will. I think the more we learn the more we require less proof of His existence. Do you mean the Abrahamic God? If so, no. That's a Biblical/Koranic metaphor.

Do you mean what, eg, Abraham encountered, which in time inspired that metaphor? Yes. I believe that information, specifically self-knowledge through attention training, will reveal the transcendent Source of all things. It may take a few lifetimes, though...

AsbestosFlaygon
What if we eventually find the Source of All Things, then someone or groups of people will fight to acquire/contain said power for personal gain?
There'd be, like, another World War.

Shabazz916
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
What if we eventually find the Source of All Things, then someone or groups of people will fight to acquire/contain said power for personal gain?
There'd be, like, another World War. we wnt becuz its a fact that its creation

Mindship
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
What if we eventually find the Source of All Things, then someone or groups of people will fight to acquire/contain said power for personal gain?
There'd be, like, another World War. According to the meditative/mystical schools of thought, the SOAT is not a physical place or object. It is a state of awareness that is (in a manner of speaking) on the other, far, far side of the Thought Barrier (one's inner dialogue). It is not something that can be possessed; in fact, trying to possess it takes you further from it.

As for fighting over "God": this has been one of Humanity's favorite pasttimes for several centuries.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
well unless a explosion of nothing brings about everything we have proof

The big bang says nothing about what happened before. There is a very good chance that the big bang was not a creation, but instead a change.

You should read the book The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin. He presents an integrating theory about what happened before the big bang.

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The big bang says nothing about what happened before. There is a very good chance that the big bang was not a creation, but instead a change.

You should read the book The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin. He presents an integrating theory about what happened before the big bang. i dnt do theory give me answers or things that make sense

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
i dnt do theory give me answers or things that make sense

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

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

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

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

like i said gimme something without doubt that it cut clear without research bcuz you can hide info

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
like i said gimme something without doubt that it cut clear without research bcuz you can hide info

All I am telling you is if you are going to claim a creation, then you must first prove there was a creation. I was just showing you how there could be other possibilities.

The burden of proof is on you.

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I am telling you is if you are going to claim a creation, then you must first prove there was a creation. I was just showing you how there could be other possibilities.

The burden of proof is on you.

the proof is something can't come from nothing

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
the proof is something can't come from nothing

There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

everything has to come from something sir

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
everything has to come from something sir

Ya. Where did a creation come from?

Shabazz916
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. Where did a creation come from? from a god that create everything and a perfect order as it started

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
from a god that create everything and a perfect order as it started

And what did this god create everything from?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shabazz916
from a god that create everything and a perfect order as it started

I think you are the person who believes that the universe was created from nothing. I don't believe in a creation so I believe that the universe did NOT come from nothing.

dyajeep
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are the person who believes that the universe was created from nothing. I don't believe in a creation so I believe that the universe did NOT come from nothing.

if you don't believe that the universe was created from nothing, then you must believe that everything there is - is already as it was... there is no beginning... funny, how you had a beginning and everything else has none...

Digi
The circles being run in this thread are a bit depressing.

There are a few possibilities surrounding the universe's creation. Among them are that the universe is an eternal entity unto itself; or that it did spring from nothingness (impossible to conceptualize but mathematically feasible); or that there was a creation point and something was the cause of it. Whether or not that something was a God or even sentient requires additional justification.

Positing a God or gods as the creator(s) of the universe also brings the problem of infinite regress into the discussion. If you're unfamiliar with that idea/problem, it's not worth engaging anyone on the topic until you understand it. In a nutshell, though, the theistic rationalization for this requires an a priori argument. God just is, or some variation thereof. That rationalization merely avoids the question, however; it doesn't answer it. And if you choose to believe it, that's your prerogative, but you sacrifice both explanatory power and any expectation of convincing others.

...

To segue inelegantly back to the OP's question, Information, in and of itself, is neither a force to move us closer or further from God. In the sense that the "God of the Gaps" is far smaller than he was even 50 years year, let alone hundreds, information has moved us away from a god or gods. However, a theist who doesn't reject science might argue that information merely brings us closer to an understanding of God and his creation. Or, if you adhere to something like Einstein's God (which was basically synonymous for the beauty and complexity of the universe), information and God are practically interchangeable.

So it's all contextual. In most (but not all) senses of modern religion, though, information increases secularism, because it removes the magical thinking that infects much of modern-day theism.

dyajeep
Originally posted by Digi
The circles being run in this thread are a bit depressing.

depressing, indeed... but at least you admitted:

Originally posted by Digi
There are a few possibilities surrounding the universe's creation.

that the universe was created...

but this guy ---





Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no reason for the universe coming from nothing. If the universe did not come from nothing, there there was no creation.

See how simple that is? No creation = no something coming from nothing.

this guy's hopeless... stick out tongue

Digi
Ok. So, would you like to discuss universal origin and the OP's question?

bluewaterrider
Originally posted by Digi

So it's all contextual. In most (but not all) senses of modern religion, though, information increases secularism, because it removes the magical thinking that infects much of modern-day theism.


1. What would it look like if it were NOT contextual?

2. "magical thinking ... infects much of modern-day theism" ... Can you give a definition and example of what you consider "magical" thinking?

3. What kind of vetting process do you use to evaluate sources that you trust?
Do they even get one? Or is your skepticism reserved only for things and people you don't like?

4. Is there any secular wrongdoing in the last 60 years that your standard way of operating and thinking would have been able to detect, let alone correct?

Star428
You know how atheists are. Anything that doesn't conform to their ridiculous notion that there is no purpose to the universe and that everything is random/came into being by accident is "magical thinking" to them. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Quincy
Yeah how silly of us

Digi
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. What would it look like if it were NOT contextual?

2. "magical thinking ... infects much of modern-day theism" ... Can you give a definition and example of what you consider "magical" thinking?

3. What kind of vetting process do you use to evaluate sources that you trust?
Do they even get one? Or is your skepticism reserved only for things and people you don't like?

4. Is there any secular wrongdoing in the last 60 years that your standard way of operating and thinking would have been able to detect, let alone correct?

1. By contextual, I mean it depends on your definition of God. I outlined a few such definitions in my last point. I'm not sure what you're asking about no context. The question can't be sufficiently answered, imo, without that point being made.

2. Prayer healing, the power of prayer in general, ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, ghosts, telepathy, astrology, precognition, power of thought on the material universe, near-death spiritual experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, Tarot, crop circles, and many others I'm forgetting. Basically, anything that lacks empirical evidence, but claims a large number of believers.

3. The question is framed as an attack, so please try to change your tone. I've become antagonistic with no one here, and want to keep it that way. But...Skepticism should be all-encompassing, to the point where we're even skeptical of our skepticism at times. Constant evaluation and critical analysis when presented with new ideas is the only real rule. No one is perfect in this sense - least of all me - but that's the goal. To demand justification for my beliefs at all times, rather than resorting to blind faith, and not to dismiss new ideas without first considering them. That sort of openness is how I left religion in the first place. It would be silly to abandon the methodology that led me to my current worldview.

4. I'm not sure of the relevance of this question to what I posted earlier, or how to begin answering it.

And if I ever seem angry or dismissive, it usually has more to do with the person and their approach than their ideas or religion itself. Ideas and beliefs I generally have little problem with, unless they actively harm others. But people, that's a different story. For example...

Originally posted by Star428
You know how atheists are. Anything that doesn't conform to their ridiculous notion that there is no purpose to the universe and that everything is random/came into being by accident is "magical thinking" to them. roll eyes (sarcastic)

No, not at all. But with that tone, I don't expect to make any headway toward mutual understanding. Suffice it to say, this post doesn't describe my way of thinking at all, suggesting that your antagonism springs more from a flawed understanding of others' beliefs and motivations than anything else.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.