Re: Re: Where was God on 9/11?
Originally posted by Impediment
Man has made God into his own image, not vice versa.
Even though I do believe there is a God (in the sense of a higher power), you're absolutely right about that.
Be funny to find out how close any of the religions have actually come, in boxing and wrapping God. Because they all claim to be right.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYeah, but devotion to a religion doesn't contribute as "good things".
Maybe doing good things is worth while, just because it is.
I believe that the only person you're a burden to is yourself. However, we are also dependant of society, therefore the only right things are those that are good to you, and good to society, which in effect is good to you again. This how I live my life -- and plan to live my life, doing good for myself and those around me (doesn't just mean humans).
Originally posted by leonheartmm
tnropy does apply to a primary cause for OUR universe. please do remember that physically, our universes is very probably a SMALL part of a much bigger existance, which doesnt look or sound anything like a traditional god.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
god does not need to be intelligent or outside of EXISTANCE{the cause can be outside the UNIVERSE but there are still lotsa things outside THIS universe, higher dimensions and whatnot}. the sheer complexity of the universe easily makes it almost inevitable that systems like human beings would physically form due to chance simply because there is so much variation and material available in the templagte. the shaking ropes to form knots example fits here.
A house can not build itself. Something outside the house must build it to come into existence. And even if you are recognizing higher dimensions and whatnot, you ares till recognizing something OUTSIDE of this universe. However, an infinite regression is IMPOSSIBLE, so inevitably there must be something OUTSIDE OF EVERYTHING. Such a something exists. PERIOD. We aren't calling him God yet.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the creator does not necessarily have to be more complex than the creation. you are again assuming that god is a sentient entity and he is responsible for every tiny little thing being in the arrangement is , INTENTIONALLY and with a plan etc. otherwise, random events can make the most complex of things.
No I am assuming on experience that man has not created something greater then he. Now I am making the assumption that he never will based that so far in our history we haven't and haven't presently either. And not necessarily. Our something can be the Clock Master or the Domino man. He could have set everything but the way things turned out is according to the laws that he established.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the size of the universe has nothing to do with it requirinig a creator at all, the fact is that the universe is ruled by 4 very uniform forces and on an observable scale, ALL this complexity in celestial bodies and chemically can be explained by those forces and is completely predictable, as such, the HAND OF GOD has been very much subtracted from the equation. for the simplest of accounts on how this happens, you can read stephen hawkins' books for laymen like the brief history of time or the universe in a nutshell just to get rid of the conception that every part of this COMPLEXITY and orderliness has been maticulously crafter or sumthing.
and science doesnt consider the possibility impossible at ALL.
Do you know of the monkey equation?
Originally posted by Quiero MotaBlind faith is faith in something absurd. The Bible's idea of an all loving God is absurd. If you have faith in this, you have blind faith.
"Blind faith" is an issue Dinesh D'souza talks about in his latest book What's So Great About Christianity? Just because a person is a person of faith, doesn't necassarily mean they're a mindless follower."[b]It's entirely possible for a believer to be just as skeptical of their faith as a scientist is of the natural world
." And that's true, and it applies to me. I don't take in the pages of the Bible hook, line and sinker. I look at the Bible and religion in general with an open and an inquisitive mind. I don't like or understand why Atheists are so quick to dismiss faith as blind faith. [/B]
Originally posted by King of Blades
I would you need you to better clarify what you mean by "entropy". From what I know of entropy, I don't believe that applies to God.
Entropy as in chaos. Sheer random action.
Originally posted by King of Blades
No, but the god proven by Quinquae Via must be intelligent and must be outside of the universe (or in short; a creator). Aquinas was merely aiming for Something. Remember, words are lost in translation. Thomas could have been aiming for "something" in what translates as God.
It doesn't have to be intelligent.
Aquinas never proves that, he merely makes a broad assumption (All natural bodies in the world act for ends) which he cannot prove and does not try to prove and expands upon it to prove that the creator must be intelligent.
Originally posted by King of Blades
I never said God was complex. I merely said what was created is complex. And since creation is never more complex then its creator, it is then logical to conclude that the something is more complex then the universe. Notice, I didn't say God, I said something.
I've given you an example of a creation more complex than it's creator.
Originally posted by King of Blades
But I must disagree with the coming of being of the universe. There is no way, with the the size of this universe, that what was brought forth was out of sheer inevitability. It is simply illogical. The probability is what science itself would consider impossible!
Why would you say that? Quantum mechanics allows for nigh infinite numbers of events occurring at the same time. The odds of one of those not eventually sparking something are astronomical.
Originally posted by parenthesisMaybe we have a wrong concept of what a loving god is? Maybe we have grouped it with mans ideas of what we were taught. Conditional love. Maybe god isn't conditional at all.
Blind faith is faith in something absurd. The Bible's idea of an all loving God is absurd. If you have faith in this, you have blind faith.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
See, I don't agree with that. Why does faith have to go hand-in-hand with being "blind"?
Because it's without evidence. If something has evidence, believing in it is based on reason.
Your quote seemed to say "we don't mindlessly follow" ...which is plenty true. But simply thinking about one's religious beliefs doesn't mean that you aren't operating on faith, which, yes, is blind or its not actually faith.
And I understand the distinction between, say, "I have faith that my food isn't poisoned" which isn't fully aware (you don't know 100%) but neither is it fully blind, because we make such assumptions based on statistical probability and reasonable guesses. Saying "I believe in God, and specifically the Christian one" is based on faith. You have reasoning for your beliefs, certainly, but at the end of the day you can't point to something infallibly and "know" you're right. There's a leap of (blind) faith.
Originally posted by BackFire
Digi, are you saying that it's impossible to believe in a religion without being blind (not literally, of course, you know)?
With theistic religions, at least. And not totally, since rationalizations exist for various specific beliefs or aspects of a religion. But yes, to fully believe, I feel like there needs to be a leap of faith, because logic and reason alone doesn't account for it. Or if a person thinks they do, they're deluding themselves.
And adherence to faith, which again is without evidence, and is more strongly held onto by many than anything in the world, leads to irrational and potentially dangerous actions and choices. Because it's an intuitive "knowing" that takes precedence over reasons and, yes, life in many cases because religion and faith is more important to the person. Some of these effects are more subtle, like political manipulations. Others take the form of this thread's titlular event.
Originally posted by BackFire
But why is faith in a religion inherently blind?What exactly do you mean by the term "blind" in this case?Also, you are wrong in saying that that adherence to faith leads to irrational actions and choices, you forgot the word "can", which is important.
Excellent distinctions. Hopefully I an address them adequately.
I think people are taking the word "blind" and taking it to far. Some (not all) think through their beliefs and have rationalizations and/or justifications for them. Yet if there were something concrete that could solidify this religion or that as "right" over the others, there would be no need for division. Thus, reason alone can't account for the dogmatic adherence religious people have to their beliefs.
Blind means that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify it. That to truly believe in a God, one has to simply "believe it"...the apologetics essays can come along later, but still only supplement belief, not replace it. Belief is intuitive, not logically induced. It doesn't mean that a person merely accepts something, nor does it mean that they never think it through. I think that's where people are getting hung up.
So if a theist says they operate without blind faith, either their justification has logical holes or they don't truly believe (or they're mistaking their internal rationalizations for actual belief).
....
And all of this is a bit side-tracked. The point, my point at least, was not the people who sit down and attempt to rationalize their faith. My argument centered on the cause of 9/11, which was indeed blind faith. Ask a terrorist for justification and he'll probably recite the Koran. Ask an evangelical for proof and they'll quote the Bible. It's not reason...it's blind adherence to doctrine.
The concept of "faith" creates an environment where such extremism can occur, because that strong faith needs no justification other than an internal belief. Faith isn't dangerous in rational, intelligent believers (of any faith)...far from it. In those people it's completely benign. But the danger is those whom the rational faithful tacitly endorse through their belief. The ones who take the concept of faith too far...and expose it's flaws.
Someone mentioned faith being a tool capable of good or evil. Completely true. But one doesn't need faith to do good, and the potential evil creating by the concept is far worse, and it is why I can see faith being used for good in some individuals but still oppose it as a concept. So yes, I left out the word "can" which is important, but it ultimately becomes just a footnote when the whole is taken into account.
People are taking the word blind by it's default implications, and not by how you actually mean it, I think. Blind, as it is, according to actual and largely accepted definitions, first and foremost implies that you are not seeing something.
When used within the context of faith and religion, the word implies that the person with "blind faith" is so convinced in their beliefs, that should evidence or proof arise that shows them to be wrong, they would disregard it lazily, blindly following their beliefs in the face of a greater truth. This is why a lot of people object to the term 'blind faith' being used to cover all aspects and types of religious followers and believers. Many, many people don't consider themselves that kind of believer, and they probably aren't. Though, your use of the word is different and less insulting than the normal and common use of the word; you simply mean it as faith.
Your use of blind and faith is somewhat redundant in this case, I think, as the word faith alone carries the proper implications and meaning that you are trying to get across. Faith, on its own, means that what you believe in does not carry any substantial evidence, throwing the word "blind" in front of the word changes that meaning for most people, who again, are used to that combination of words meaning something else entirely to most people, and the way you use it is confusing, since faith has the same meaning as 'blind faith' in how you're using it.
Example, you say: "So if a theist says they operate without blind faith, either their justification has logical holes or they don't truly believe." Meaning just 'faith', and not 'blind faith' as it's commonly understood.
So when a theist objects to the idea that they operate under blind faith, they're going by the common usage of the term -- that they're fanatical and that it would be impossible to convince them otherwise should proof arise showing them to be wrong, instead of what you actually mean by it. They don't deny that there is faith, but that it isn't 'blind', meaning they see themselves as reasonable enough to know that it is faith and nothing more.
Our universe is HUGE! What are you talking about. The parallel universe theory isn't necessarily a doctrine of science as it really only swims in the waters of philosophy then actual scientific ones.
no it is not. it comes firmly in the realm of physical sciences. as does the grand unification theory and both are interconnected
A house can not build itself. Something outside the house must build it to come into existence. And even if you are recognizing higher dimensions and whatnot, you ares till recognizing something OUTSIDE of this universe. However, an infinite regression is IMPOSSIBLE, so inevitably there must be something OUTSIDE OF EVERYTHING. Such a something exists. PERIOD. We aren't calling him God yet.
there are configuratyions that are dimensionally impossible{i.e. ones that can not be built due to spatial impossibilities like trying to put a large ball through the mouth of a small battle without breaking the bottle} and then there configuration that ARE possible. given enough tries with the basic building blocks available{as carbon and other molecules are for dna and life and as other interacting higher dimensional phenomenon and super strings were possibly for our universe} anything can and most probably WILL be formed without intelligence. as for outside the universe, i admit, there probably is. but see, ever since higher dimensions were proposed, the UNIVERSE has lost a lot of the significance people associated with it. when initially peopl said UNIVERSE, they meant EVERYTHING which "existed" . but now our universe is just PART of a bigger existance. to say that there are things outside the universe which created it wud probably be correct, but the question of a great entity that that created ALL of those higher and lower things is the realm of god now. otherwise god wud just be a higher dimensional alien or sumthing and there wud be sumthing greater than HIM to in all of existance.
as for infinite regreassion, WHY is it impossible. if everything must have a cause then why is this "certain sumthing which must exist PERIOD" is exempt from the rule? why is it then that you find it so hard that the universe/multiverse/existance may also be exempt from that rule. after all, all we have ever seen are things TRANSITIONING from one form to another, no1 has ever seen anything CREATED from nothing inside our observable realities so how can we then say that the universe must have been CREATED? maybe it has always existed in one form or another and has been continually TRANSITIONING?
No I am assuming on experience that man has not created something greater then he. Now I am making the assumption that he never will based that so far in our history we haven't and haven't presently either. And not necessarily. Our something can be the Clock Master or the Domino man. He could have set everything but the way things turned out is according to the laws that he established.
but what do you mean by GREATER??? it is true that OVERALL, man has not created a brain with enough average thinking and reasoning and learning capacity to rival its own. but as far as individual processing goes, most computers are known to have a basic processing capacity far higher than the brain in their individual functions. similarly, man has created many machines which are stronger, faster and can perform maany functions that man's body can not survive. we have set up things like the internet and what not. most of them can be cosidered more COMPLEX than us in many ways. furthermore, an average igneous rock has a very COMPLEX{i.e comlicated structure}, as it wud be very complex for you to know the ocnfiguration of every sand particle after haphazardly making a rough mound of sand. comlication WITH underlying functional structure is what you are talking about, and i think the above examples suffice to prove my point there too.
as for the clockmaster analogy, it isnt very effective because those can easily be attributed to higher dimensional functions which are as predictable as the laws of the universe. ther wud be no SENTIENCE required there.
Do you know of the monkey equation?
no i have never heard of the monkey equation.
Originally posted by BackFire
People are taking the word blind by it's default implications, and not by how you actually mean it, I think. Blind, as it is, according to actual and largely accepted definitions, first and foremost implies that you are not seeing something.When used within the context of faith and religion, the word implies that the person with "blind faith" is so convinced in their beliefs, that should evidence or proof arise that shows them to be wrong, they would disregard it lazily, blindly following their beliefs in the face of a greater truth. This is why a lot of people object to the term 'blind faith' being used to cover all aspects and types of religious followers and believers. Many, many people don't consider themselves that kind of believer, and they probably aren't. Though, your use of the word is different and less insulting than the normal and common use of the word; you simply mean it as faith.
Your use of blind and faith is somewhat redundant in this case, I think, as the word faith alone carries the proper implications and meaning that you are trying to get across. Faith, on its own, means that what you believe in does not carry any substantial evidence, throwing the word "blind" in front of the word changes that meaning for most people, who again, are used to that combination of words meaning something else entirely to most people, and the way you use it is confusing, since faith has the same meaning as 'blind faith' in how you're using it.
Example, you say: "So if a theist says they operate without blind faith, either their justification has logical holes or they don't truly believe." Meaning just 'faith', and not 'blind faith' as it's commonly understood.
So when a theist objects to the idea that they operate under blind faith, they're going by the common usage of the term -- that they're fanatical and that it would be impossible to convince them otherwise should proof arise showing them to be wrong, instead of what you actually mean by it. They don't deny that there is faith, but that it isn't 'blind', meaning they see themselves as reasonable enough to know that it is faith and nothing more.
Fair enough. But the semantics of the phrase don't alter my point. I'll rescind "blind" unless it's needed in order to remain clear and consistent, but I still strongly object to faith at all in a religious sense for the reasons mentioned in my last post.
faith is always partially blind. based on trust, or on a perception of knowledge that does not come from the senses but "inner fealing" which generally can not be logically described to have any corellation with events in the real world, hence making it very blind in itself. but ofcourse, worldly reasons and logic and attributiong {or rather reconciliing} wordly events to the teachings of the doctrine are used by beleivers to come to more sound conclusions about their faith so yeah, it isnt totally blind.
true faith i think is like trust/love.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough. But the semantics of the phrase don't alter my point. I'll rescind "blind" unless it's needed in order to remain clear and consistent, but I still strongly object to faith at all in a religious sense for the reasons mentioned in my last post.
Last I'll say, next time instead of using 'blind' to preceed 'faith', perhaps use 'pure'. The meaning would be more accurate and clear, and you'd emphasise that there is nothing more to it.
No your point is fine, though I don't agree with it. I don't think faith is inherently bad.
You mentioned that you don't need faith to do good, you also don't need faith to do bad.
The only problem is when people don't understand the limits of faith, and begin thinking their belief is something more. The people who understand that their faith is just that, and accept that, then there is no reasonable problem that I can see with them.