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.
Not to someone who has never been exposed to apples or information about apples. They would believe apples do not exist.
Beliefs are dependent on what the individual has been exposed to so they vary from person to person.
Asking someone to disprove what they believe is illogical whether it is apples or oranges or God.
apples are common knowledge. with your reasoning this entire world might not exist, it could simply be the dream of a frog. Of course, that sounds ridiculous to human reasoning.
All I'm trying to say is you can't prove the existence of God, and you can't prove the nonexistence of God either. So believing in , or not believing in God is simply opinion.
Maybe I haven't thought hard enough, but it seems that you can only prove the existence of God, since I don't know how it is possible to prove the nonexistence of anything. For all we know, this could all be a dream of a frog. There could be a giant spaghetti monster flying around space. Since it is only possible to prove something exists, the only way God would become a fact, rather than an opinion is if he came down to Earth and demanded we worship him. Of course, he has already done that. Jesus showed countless times that he was God, but humans still refused to believe him.
I feel that it isn't, "Atheists don't believe in God," but that "Atheists don't want to believe in God." If God came down tomorrow, would you simply change your beliefs, or claim that he was a superhero, or some sort of anomaly from the cosmos?
Actually you are talking about your own reasoning because what I stated makes perfect sense to me. Everyone reasons things very differently not only from others but also throughout their lifetimes. Mainly what I am saying is that beliefs are not always opinions simply because certain beliefs vary amongst individuals. Beliefs vary amongst individuals because we all have a different set of experiences which cause us to perceive things in different ways.
I assume that you feel that way because you do believe in God and want to and that is great. I can understand why you feel that way if that is the case.
Can't ignore that.... as juxtapose 'theist' with 'atheist' and 'do' with 'don't' and you have the same irrelevancy.
'want' is redundant and thus meaningless.
It has more to do with the point of view....She says "feel"....I would express that as "believe".....Some people who believe "feel" what they believe. People who don't, "know" what they believe.
So If I try to put myself in the head of a believer: I might not understand why people could possibly not want to "feel" the same way. So I might think of it in terms of desire and express it as "want". Maybe not so meaningless?
More like the confusion of semantics.....the reason most 'arguments' exist is simple semantics....or rather the confusion of mis-interpretation.
The problem is simply the lack of simplicity in terminology.
Sad part is....at the end of the day, yes, that's yet another day you won't ever get back.
Life is short, whether there is a god or not... or that science has all the answers or not....chances are you will just be dead and none the wiser either way.
....and yet, here I am....on this little ink-blot on the literary globe of human cognitive reasoning wishing I didn't HAVE to be here policing it against flame and misfortune....
However that instance was not an argument. It is true misunderstanding at the core. It's an example of youth. Hint:"giant spaghetti monster flying around space" Wish I was still thinking that way. Kinda why I "ended" saying I understand why she feels that way.
Think it might have been just a Full moon or something over the weekend..
the Giant Spaghetti Monster is a book written by an Atheist. Saying the same thing I was just saying. No one has proved or disproved the existence of a Giant Spaghetti Monster, so it may or may not exist. The author was using to show my previous argument about you can't prove or disprove the existence of God.
So I didn't make that up off the top of my head, if that was what you were thinking.
I was thinking you were simply quite young. but here is what that is really about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=350306
Well I don't know about you but my ashes are going over my favorite trout pond so I'm hoping to be food for thought for the big one that got away.
Bottom line: The 'experiencing' or 'knowing' g-d, (or not) are both subjective and personal expressions. Objective proof of g-d's existence (or non- existence) does not exist in humanity's current data set. So, the only rational position to take is that of the agnostic: In the absence of objective proof regarding the existence, (or non-existence of g-d), I must say, "I don't know if g-d exists, or not." Whether I am a person of faith (or not) has nothing to do with rational, objective evidence, and everything to do with my (shared) experience of my 'invisible friend.'
Harvey, or no Harvey, (tongue planted firmly in my cheek), if faith empowers a person to do and be better, great! If, however, faith warps them into a place where they strive to make everyone agree with them about faith, no matter how well intentioned, - well, "Danger, Will Robinson!" a move towards tyranny is afoot.
Oh, lets hope the flying spaghetti monster does not move to Sheybogen... the monster that ate Sheybogen is still hungry (more humor).
-------------------------
notes: Harvey = a 1950 film based on Mary Chase's play of the same name, directed by Henry Koster, and starring James Stewart and Josephine Hull. Well worth a watch.
Monster (or creature?) that ate Sheybogen =a 70s a 'beer and pretzels' board game where one person plays the monster and tries to 'eat' all of sheybogen city. The other player controls the police, civil defense, fire department, and with some luck, a late arriving detachment of National Guards. Fun little game... now I'm hungry...
What does that even mean? I fail to see how I worded that wrong.
That is rational for you but "reasoning" has everything to do one's own personal experiences. All three positions are rational. It is simply a matter of who is doing the reasoning.
what does religion have to do with a supreme being? Ever seen a fire burining in a bush yet the bush doesn't burn? Now I suppose you'll say Moses was doing drugs when he saw that or his mind was shot.
[quote who="MortalKhrist" reply="1027" id="3071682"]I feel that it isn't, "Atheists don't believe in God," but that "Atheists don't want to believe in God." If God came down tomorrow, would you simply change your beliefs, or claim that he was a superhero, or some sort of anomaly from the cosmos?
Let me explain this using science.
Laws are things that have been proven. (This is where I'm coming from)
Theories are well thought out ideas. (This is where you're coming from)
Laws are postulations that are as yet not disproven.
Theories are [only sometimes] well thought out postulations which have not yet been proven.
This is a well-known philosophical enigma, and it's called a noseeum argument. There's also a legal term for it, I forget. Plenty of theistic debates go on and on about this principle. In law, it's basically that you can prove you were not at such-and-such a place on the night of the murder, but you cannot prove that you were never at such-and-such a place, ever.
If you break down science to its essence, that is the scientific method, which is: 1) formulate hypothesis, 2) run experiment, 3) amend hypothesis based on experimental data. A theory, by definition, is a collection of 1...many hypotheses. There are theories which are completely disproven, as well as theories that are proven. The Pythagorean Theorem, for example: it is a collection of 1 hypotheses. Plenty of experimental data to prove it. It is a known true theory, yet it remains called a theorem.
As far as what does religion have to do with a Supreme Being....
So I was thinking today, and came to the conclusion, mammals and humans are quite similar. Now I know most of you believe that as common knowledge, but I have finally discovered this for myself. I realized, that both humans and mammals, fear what they don't understand. If you saw a person flying like Superman in your neighborhood, you would most likely be frightened, or shocked at the most. If a dog saw the same thing, they would bark at the person. The government would most likely want to take the person into custody to try and understand them.
So both mammals and humans fear what they don't understand.
I understand this probably has nothing to do with the topic, but I thought I would share my discovery with you guys.
I don't bark at flying people ergo either you are wrong [mammals and humans are quite similar] or I am not human....
I'll ignore the FACT that humans are mammals too, anyway..... ...
1. Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists.
tetleytea; Good reference (Evidence of absence). Going to have to read it again slower I think … but interesting, thanks. That one sure sounds like a slippery barrel of monkeys at first glance.
I've got no class so I usually ignore that I'm a mammal as well
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
