Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Exactly! I was simply making a point that you can't logically argue religion. If one person believes that God just is, then why can't another believe the same for the universe? One person can believe that the universe is full of random coincidences and another can believe in intelligent design, but neither can be proven, nor disproven.
Ultimately the answer to either doesn't really matter. It doesn't change the way people should behave.
If I find a watch I know it exists, but I can only fathom the existence of its creator / owner. In the end, I've found a watch and some questions. I know the universe exists because it is a tangible thing, but there is no way to determine if there is a creator.
Note: Basically I'm just pointing out a logical paradox.
More Stuff: I'm a programmer, so I'm a little inclined to see the universe from a similiar perspective. I see it like this: If I were God, the universe would be designed in a way that it is self-sufficient and does not require my intervention, except to fix the occassional bug. Ultimately the universe would be a set of algorithms and logic that define how things work and provide limitations for various things. People, are simply actors within the program, but they follow no strict lines. They are self-sufficent and capable of reprogramming / modifying their own A.I. Thus, intelligent design exists, people maintain their freedoms, and science has its logical basis.
Woops... forums bugged on me and my post wasn't showing... so I tried a refresh and then a repost.
And most scientist believe that there is a date that the universe was created. So so much for that theory.
I like that view; very logical.
I am majoring in the physics field (electromagnetics). But what I find interesting
is that many scientists from all the feilds of science still believe in god.
This may sound strange to some people, but even in the science field, it's
impossible to describe certain aspects of the universe. Just watch a video
on how a cell works, its so amazingly complex, yet we have several trillion of
these wonderous machines that make up our bodies. But how did these cells
get made? When did several of these different cells decide to work together, and
make a macroscopic organism? It's impossible to explain.
We don't even know when, or how the universe was made. I know pople keep
referring to the "big bang", but we still have no idea what caused it, or how energy
was created (remember, it cant be created or destroyed!), etc.
In my opinion, god made the universe, gave it certain rules that it had to follow, and
then left. We are just discovering the rules that god used to create the universe.
(if you look into string theory, there is a chance that many other universes exist, all following
there own cosmic rules).
The fact is, you have to be careful with both faith and science. Because, both are two different
ways of trying to understand a universe, a universe we know nothing about. It is easy to become
ignorent on both sides of the isle. The fact is, there is a reason humans exist having both faith, and
science. It's simply because we can reap the benefits with both, rather then just one or the other
(think about this).
It's not impossible to explain at all. It's quite well explained in evolutionary theory.
\
True . Still, there are many questions. Like when did simple compounds come together to make
the first cell? There are so many questions, yet so few answers .
Yep, Kryo outlines the rules here.
OTF Political, Religious and Inflammatory Threads
Which may mean there is an appropiate thread at JL for this discussion.
Interesting topic tbh.First of all,By this same logic we can assume that God was created by a higher being Thats a contradiction. The definition of God is the perfect "being". You cant have something that is more than perfect. God is the highest "being", anything higher then him is God. And to the people who dont believe in God, you worked this out by logic? I think logic is very unreliable in itself. Example on how to prove God's existence with logic:Definition of God: That than which nothing greater can be concieved".Step 1: Imagine GodStep 2: God exists in the mindStep 3: Something that exists in the mind AND reality, is greater then something that exists ONLY in the mind.Step 4: Therefore if God is to be "something that nothing greater can be concieved of". he must exist in the mind and reality. If he only existed in the mind, then you could imagine something even greater - a God that existed in the mind AND reality. That contradicts the definiton of God.Step 5: Therefore God exists.The purest form of logic in five steps, explain right above Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.
No, most scientists believe there is a date at which the Universe began it's current state of existance.
If you don't see the gaping holes in that 'logic', then I don't know what to say...
Actually Coelocanth, that argument is logical. Ask any phylosophy
professor. It's hard to explain, but mental beliefes can also be interpreted
as reality. These step helps set up a mental belief, which can be interpreted as
reality, and thus it is logical.
Coelcanth, its called the Ontological Arugment btw
Actually if you look up "Ontological Argument" on wikipedia you will see that nearly all modern day philosophers find the original argument you posted (Anselm's) to be invalid. There are a few people going through linguistic contortions to try to make a new version of it, but so far they have been shot down by other philosophers as well.
Anyway, there are several flaws, first, in the premises:
"That which than nothing greater" - the word "greater" is a loaded term. What's great for you may not be great for me. In fact, I'd say the word "great" is so vague as to be almost meaningless. When I imagine the "greatest" sandwich that can be conceived of, it's probably very different than the "greatest" sandwich you would imagine.
1) Imagine God. - It's not actually possible to imagine God, since no one has any idea what they're talking about when they use that word and there's no actual definitive version of God, and no way to know if what you're imagining is God or not. I could imagine a ham sandwich and claim that I'm imagining God. But is that true? How do I know that what I'm imagining is the "greatest" thing, or even great at all? It's clear that Frosted Flakes are grrreat, but with other things, their level of greatness is questionable.
2) "It's greater to exist physically than just in the mind" - says who? Again, this is opinion and usage of the weasel-word "great". But let's say we accept this argument; it doesn't really matter that much.
3) "Therefore God must exist" - this is the logical fallacy, the "base assertion" fallacy I believe it's called. The only thing you can actually prove with the above two things would be something like "Therefore, the definition of God would include him actually existing." The only reason you'd conclude that he ACTUALLY exists is if you assumed that your definition at the beginning was describing something that actually exists, and that's begging the question. For example, if I said "The definition of 'Dream Angelina Jolie' is that she's a clone of Angelina Jolie but she is also my girlfriend." and "In order to be my girlfriend, she'd have to exist", it (unfortunately) does not prove "Therefore, Dream Angelina Jolie exists and is my girlfriend." The only thing it proves is "Therefore, the definition of Dream Angelina Jolie would have to include existence as one of her traits".
[/thread]
For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post.
We can embrace love; it's not too late.Why do we sleep, instead, with hate?Belief requires no suspensionto see that Hell is our invention.We make Hell real; we stoke its fires.And in its flames our hope expires.Heaven, too, is merely our creation.We can grant ourselves our own salvation.All that's required is imagination.
-The Book of Counted Sorrows,Dean Koontz
Anyone looking for reading material in this subject I highly recommend Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by physists Stephen M. Barr. Its a look at the conflict between materialist (Believes nothing exists but matter) and reliegion. He examines what he calls five plot twists, which includes the big bang, anthropic coinsidences, and studies on the humna mind.
Except that logic does not fail. Everything can be proved by logic: that's what science is. The use of logical reasoning to confirm or deny potential hypotheses. There are ways to not use logic correctly (these are called fallacies), but the idea itslef has been proven (ironically through logic) time and time again.
except you can use logic to prove anything.
Flying Spaghetti Monsters.
If god exists, so does a flying spaghtti monster. The only real measure for religion is faith, you can choose to believe or not, just leave it at that.
try on that logic for size...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
