Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@unknownuser said:
Fair enough. Still, I must insist a thesis is either proven or unproven. Possessing a degree of plausibility and being corroborated by facual proof just aren't quite the same thing.
Apologies for the fuzzy English.
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
:"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.." -
Mike, Pete is justly frustrated by the influence that this poor excuse for a holy book still has on people and our lives in the 21st century.
Maybe the term "shit" is not appropriate here, but I would submit that "garbage" is. -
@mike lucey said:
Ahhhh Pete! That's a bit heavy! Its like me saying that your 'standards' are a crock of shit! Whether I agree or not with what's written in the bible or any other religious book, I don't think its acceptable debate to call it shit. I may call these books many other things though that would express my disapproval
I'm thinking there are a few people biting their tongues in this thread.. letting a 'crock of shit' slip out it surely an understatement of what really wants to be said.
-
I see what Pete means. It's not an attack on someone's belief more the background on which the belief is based. If it's a pile of unproveable tales then it's fair to say that you find it a load of shit.
It's not fair to say that how someone lives their life is shit because the book is shit.
-
Well, here we go, a "religion" founded on technology. This should make a few folks around here a little less testy. Religion based on science and technology, and by association, facts.
Kopimism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
You can even join online: http://kopimistsamfundet.se/
From the article:
It was founded by 19-year-old philosophy student and leader Isak Gerson. He hopes that file-sharing will now be given religious protection."For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore copying is central for the organization and its members," he said in a statement.
"Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of Kopimi. Hopefully this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution," he added.
Wikileaks just needs the right canon ...
Enjoy.
-
@starling75 said:
"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.."
What was that whooshing sound?
-
@solo said:
No Mike it will not be the same as we are not discussing standards, we are discussing dogma.
We are discussing a book that has absolutely zero factual evidence,
I think most of the folks here who've been supporting Christianity have tried to be pretty reasonable. But is this really a statement you're prepared to support?
@unknownuser said:
we are discussing a system of belief that plagues the world with violence committed in it's name, we are talking about a system of corruption masked as a loving path to eternity, we are talking about a book that supports hate then opposes it, supports slavery then opposes it, opposes pork then supports it, calls for an eye for an eye then tells you to turn the other cheek...etc, etc, etc.
I will use Sh#t instead if it's less offensive...even though I still mean shit.
Again, you don't seem to be being reasonable here, Pete. Would you at least concede that there are SOME Christians, trying to follow Jesus and in so doing, are making the world a better place? Really, your argument seems to border on conspiracy and paranoia. The 'system of belief' we seem to be discussing is Christianity - and where is this widespread violence committed in the name of Jesus?
Besides, you yourself claimed Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible was a 'liberal socialist' did you not? And I presume you'd also say he stands for non-violence, as I would. So if there were a significant group of people committing violence under that banner, wouldn't it be likely that they'd probably be committing violence without that banner as well - ie. that they're just violent people? If people began murdering in the name of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, would we advocate not printing their words or biographies? Wouldn't we instead, promote a true understanding of their principles and call people back to a more honest understanding of the lives and actions they were promoting?
That is certainly what I do, although I don't see the sort of thing you're referring to. Mostly I disagree with Christians who find war or being a soldier to be a justifiable option within a consistent Christian world-view. Aside from my electricity, I mostly line up with the Amish in terms of beliefs.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
Brodie,
Yes I used a broad brush in my statement, yes there are peaceful and non invasive religions, but lets now just focus on Christianity as it seems to be the dominant one on these forums.
Firstly there are thousands of denominations and then you get the non denominational s, everyone thinks the other is wrong, yet all take their beliefs from the same source, so it comes down to the interpretation of that book.
Fair enough, but you must understand that most of these denominations disagree over what we'd call non-essential matters. So, yes, each denomination thinks the others are wrong, but by and large they think the other denominations are wrong on non-essential matters and fully expect to see these people at the resurrection.
It's a bit like being a republican or democrat. We disagree on how to help the poor (provide less government help vs. more) or how to remain safe (more aggressive foreign policy vs. more negotiations). But we're all after the same thing (fewer poor people, safer citizens) and we all call each other Americans.
@unknownuser said:
The book itself is full of contradictions and abnormalities that lends itself to such controversy,
The bible does have some fascinating paradoxes, which happen to suite my more post-modern sensibilities quite well. But I certainly wouldn't say it's full of contradictions. Can you point out one (or some) of these and how you think it's lead to controversy within Christianity? And I'm not sure what you mean by 'abnormalities'?
@unknownuser said:
now if indeed it is the word of God one would think it would be a little less obscure and confusing to say the least especially having been written in a time that most folk were totally illiterate.
I tend to suspect the Bible probably does what God wanted it to. In our Western mind-sets it's often a wonder that God didn't just provide us with a very clear cut list of do's and don'ts - each with a subset of provisions which answer any and all possible questions. Indeed, we often try to turn it into such a thing.
My guess is that part of the reason the Bible is written as it is, is because it promotes a sort of continued relationship with God. One can learn the essentials without much effort, but even those who've studied it for many years continue to grow in their understanding of God through it in deeper and deeper ways. A side-effect of this is that there are a range of interpretations but as I mentioned, these are mostly on side-issues.
@unknownuser said:
As for violence in the name of Christianity, there are many instances of this in history, no need to go into details.
I disagree, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.
@unknownuser said:
So you mention Jesus and my comment about him seeming a like a caring, loving, social liberal, I agree this is what I get from reading the new testament. If only Christians (name taken from being Christ-like) would be more Christ-like and less Old testament aggressive and polarizing. More accepting and caring and less judging and fear-mongering.
Then we're essentially in agreement then? The answer isn't necessarily for Christians to get rid of Christ, but rather to be more like him. I'm with you here, and I assure you many Christians are. The latest phenomena in American Christianity you'll quickly notice, should you find yourself in a Christian bookstore, is that many young people are disillusioned with the church. Books with titles like "They like Jesus but not the Church" abound. This sentiment isn't just coming from you then, but many Christians as well. We're working on making our churches less judgemental of non-christians and such things that don't look much like Jesus. Feel free to join us in this endeavor
@unknownuser said:
What really pisses me off is how they can pray to Jesus and read from his scriptures then dig up an old testament verse totally out of context to convince the congregation to hate on Homosexuals, but never can they link that hate filled ideal with Jesus, so they end up picking and choosing the bits and pieces of the bible that furthers their hateful agenda.
Things could be different in your part of the world, but in my world here in Texas the Christianity is hateful and divisive Christmas wrapped in a thin sheet of love.
Well, the NT isn't exactly silent on homosexuality but I think that's mostly an issue that has been hyped up by the media and politics (and some Christians have fallen into the trap head first). In my reading, the Bible seems pretty clear that it's a sin, but no more so than greed, lust, lying, hatred, etc (it's certainly talked about FAR less than any of those things). We're all sinners and that's sort of the point. Even if homosexuality isn't a sin, homosexuals are still sinners and need a relationship with Jesus as much as any of us.
Cornell, how do you feel about homosexuality? (
<- does this look like a troll face to you? It's the closest I could find.)-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
As for violence in the name of Christianity, there are many instances of this in history, no need to go into details.
I disagree, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.
The Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Huguenots (St. Bartholomew's Day, anyone?), witch burnings, the atrocities comitted by Joseph Kony and his cronies (though I'm reasonably sure Kony's beliefs are quite different from yours, to put it mildly.), attacks on abortion clinics, the list goes on. There was a certain religious component to the War on Terror as well - as there was to the Holocaust. And what about the oppression of homosexuals?
I'm not saying all religious folks are violent and oppressive, rest assured. Most aren't, obviously. Also, I think my conception of christianity differs vastly from yours - I live in a region where, for the longest time, Our Holy Mother, the Roman Catholic Church, ran things. And she wasn't the most loving of mothers.
That air of individuality, self-accomplishment and freedom your specific brand of christianity seems to have about it ... pretty much a foreign thing, over here. Look at a Bosch painting for reference. -
Guys,
It seems to me that the thread has evolved into an anti / pro Christian God / Religion discussion and its getting nowhere. I find it getting to the stage of boredom
Its definitely not attempting to answer the original question posed.So, maybe its time to wind it up or broaden the discussion out and away from the Bible ...... there are many other and older perspectives!
There are also many other God based religions in the World. Can we discuss these and their beliefs as far as a God Created World goes?
This site, Religions of the world: Information about 40 organized religions and faith groups. here, http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm gives an overview which I am currently reading. This is something that I have never done before in detail but have been meaning to do for a long time. I hope I will be joined by others that want to learn something
BTW, the attached image shows the various religions symbols!Mike
-
‘Solo’ wrote: “[Firstly there are thousands of denominations and then you get the non denominational s, everyone thinks the other is wrong, yet all take their beliefs from the same source, so it comes down to the interpretation of that book.]”
Solo, you present the situation ... erroneously.
It's not about differences in interpreting the Bible, it's no different dogmas...,
but the ways of ORGANIZING things and having PREFERENCES of secondary things.
Normal is that there are no two churches alike, to have no a wrong ‘spirit of the flock’, fanatical and stupid...! -
Hmm! They seem to have missed Prince Philip off that list, Mike. Those of us who adhere to the PPM are feeling a persecuted minority
-
Found this pretty entertaining.
http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-atlanta/does-stephen-hawking-believe-god -
@alan fraser said:
Hmm! They seem to have missed Prince Philip off that list, Mike. Those of us who adhere to the PPM are feeling a persecuted minority
Yes indeed you are right Alan. I remember seeing a documentary on those guys. If I remember correctly a bunch of them visited the UK but Prince Philip did not meet them. I suppose the PPM is as good a religion as any ..... tolerance in all things .... but again Prince Philip is not renowned for his tolerance! Although when he accompanied QEII to the Emerald Isle last Summer he was very pleasant to all .... even considered having a game of hurlingIts rumored that he was very careful about packing it into his suitcase as he thought that it might come in useful for bashing those annoying reports
-
-
@unknownuser said:
Found this pretty entertaining.
http://www.examiner.com/creationism-in-atlanta/does-stephen-hawking-believe-godAn interesting article. Some excerpts!
What Hawking did bring to the table that was more than a little surprising was an obvious willingness to entertain the possibility of God's involvement in the creation of the universe.
I would be inclined to take Hawking thoughts very seriously
Hawking writes "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job." (p11)
Makes sense to me!
Yet later on page 87, Hawking's quote in the margin reads "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe." In the body of the text he adds "With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency."
So far so god ..... eeeeer ..... good!
Hawking concludes "if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle, not just [to a few scientists. Then we can all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God."]
Even better! I think I'll run with Stephen's explanations / thoughts
On the religions! The one I find most interesting is Buddhism. I also think reincarnation is somewhat more of an attractive daydream subject that Heaven as I can at the stretch of imagination consider it possible.
The following quotation by Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha) makes a lot of sense! Maybe Pete is a Buddhist?
***Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."***
-
@unknownuser said:
The Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Huguenots (St. Bartholomew's Day, anyone?), witch burnings, the atrocities comitted by Joseph Kony and his cronies (though I'm reasonably sure Kony's beliefs are quite different from yours, to put it mildly.), attacks on abortion clinics, the list goes on.
Well, I'll grant you that politics and religion don't mix well and for a stretch of time there, they had quite an incestuous relationship. This is why I, personally, am against the idea of America (or any country really) being called a "Christian Nation." It gives the impression that whatever America does is, by definition, a "Christian" action or at least Christian supported. If we're a Christian nation, then any war is a religious war and Christians feel they must defend it as such.
It also seems clear that there have been some awfully bad Popes who have sanctioned the killing of thousands of people (although it doesn't seem to be a modern phenomena interestingly).
I won't defend these things, indeed I don't know of any Christians who do. However, I'm not sure how these examples 400-1000 years old would constitute as examples that Christianity is, "a system of belief that plagues the world with violence committed in it's name." These are things which happened a long time ago in a very different context which Christians have been denouncing for hundreds of years.
As for the other examples. The witch trials, have also been denounced for some time now and resulted in, I believe, 20 deaths? And then finally the contemporary examples of how religious violence 'plagues' us today. Wiki lists in the US, 6 abortion related murders, a handful of attempted murders, and 14 arsons (resulting in as little as $100 in damage). I don't know much about Kony but he seems to be a bad dude.
Any amount of violence in the name of Christianity is wrong and hypocritical, but does this look like a 'plague' of violence? To me, it's unsurprising that there are a handful of mentally unstable people who get hyped up by the media and politics and go kill an abortion doctor. They're certainly not learning to kill abortion doctors in church. I can't say anything about Kony since I don't know anything about him other than a quick glance at Wiki but we certainly have examples (how far away is Waco, Pete?) where a very charismatic, albeit bat-crap crazy, individual persuades people to follow him in a cult-like way.
@unknownuser said:
There was a certain religious component to the War on Terror as well - as there was to the Holocaust.
I'm not familiar with the argument for the Iraq war being a Christian war? And I'm unconvinced you'd even honestly wish to argue that Hitler was killing jews on account of his religious beliefs.
@unknownuser said:
And what about the oppression of homosexuals?
Oppression, like not believing same-sex marriage should be legal? Oppression seems like a strong word.
All-in-all, I'm not sure it's quite logical to suggest that because a very small number of people (many of whom seem to have serious mental health issues) commit violence, we should thereby seek the end of that religion. I'm not even sure it stands to reason that the level of violence would go down if that religion weren't around any longer. As you, yourself, said, most Christians aren't like this (by an overwhelming number) and indeed, they are typically the first to point out how unChrist-like these actions are - and how as-such, these people shouldn't be called Christians at all, no matter what they call themselves.
And to get spiritual for just a moment - if the Bible is true and Satan is real, would it surprise us that there are people out there committing heinous acts in the name of God which in tern gives God a bad name?
And what we haven't addressed is the very real plague of good which Christians have spread throughout the world. In the name of Christ people go to 3rd world countries bringing HUGE amounts of supplies, digging wells, adopting children, providing free medical and dental care, etc. Here in the St. Louis some of the closest hospitals to me are Missouri Baptist, Barnes Jewish, St. John's Mercy, and St. Luke's. Christians world-wide have not just been 'good people' but, specifically because of Christ's words have sacrificed much of their lives and wealth in favor of helping their neighbor, giving to the needy, taking care of orphans and widows, tending to the sick, etc.
-Brodie
-
@alan fraser said:
Actually, the cargo cults do raise a series point about the formation of belief systems. We find them amusing...but only because (as in the case of Prince Philip) we still have the man to compare with the myth. Who's to say that many of the myths in all the great religions didn't start in exactly the same way?
I'm not sure I follow. What would that mean in regards to Christianity for example?
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
Well, I'll grant you that politics and religion don't mix well and for a stretch of time there, they had quite an incestuous relationship. This is why I, personally, am against the idea of America (or any country really) being called a "Christian Nation."
Many do, though. But we're on the same page here. When politics and religion did mix, the result wasn't always pretty. And there you have it: pretty much the only thing I "have against" religion. When Bush was still in power, you'd have him on the one side namedropping Yahweh, and the likes of Bin Laden on the other claiming Allah's blessing. That was rather frigthening.
As long as the two are kept apart, everything's peachy, as far as I'm concerned.
@unknownuser said:
I won't defend these things, indeed I don't know of any Christians who do.
Oh, I'm sure. And I'm not being sarcastic.
@unknownuser said:
However, I'm not sure how these examples 400-1000 years old would constitute as examples that Christianity is, "a system of belief that plagues the world with violence committed in it's name."
Oi! I made no such claim. I merely wanted to point out there were and indeed are -though thankfully less than there used to be- crimes being committed in Jesus' name. I should point out, I believe, I don't primarely blame the Man Himself either. I couldn't, I'm an atheist.
@unknownuser said:
The witch trials, have also been denounced for some time now and resulted in, I believe, 20 deaths?
Interesting. I didn't know that.
@unknownuser said:
And then finally the contemporary examples of how religious violence 'plagues' us today. Wiki lists in the US, 6 abortion related murders, a handful of attempted murders, and 14 arsons (resulting in as little as $100 in damage).
I didn't say "plague". That was Pete. I merely wanted to point out ... er, see above.
@unknownuser said:
I don't know much about Kony but he seems to be a bad dude.
Satan, I believe, is real.
@unknownuser said:
I'm not familiar with the argument for the Iraq war being a Christian war?
I said "War on Terror", and I didn't call it Christian - I said there was a a certain religious component to it.
@unknownuser said:
And I'm unconvinced you'd even honestly wish to argue that Hitler was killing jews on account of his religious beliefs.
That's not what I said either. I meant that the vilification of Jews Rome wallowed in for centuries may have found a willing recipient in the young Adolf H.
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
And what about the oppression of homosexuals?
Oppression, like not believing same-sex marriage should be legal? Oppression seems like a strong word.
The world's a whole lot bigger than the USA and Western Europe.
@unknownuser said:
All-in-all, I'm not sure it's quite logical to suggest that because a very small number of people (many of whom seem to have serious mental health issues) commit violence, we should thereby seek the end of that religion.
I didn't suggest that. And I wouldn't.
@unknownuser said:
And what we haven't addressed is the very real plague of good which Christians have spread throughout the world. In the name of Christ people go to 3rd world countries bringing HUGE amounts of supplies, digging wells, adopting children, providing free medical and dental care, etc. Here in the St. Louis some of the closest hospitals to me are Missouri Baptist, Barnes Jewish, St. John's Mercy, and St. Luke's. Christians world-wide have not just been 'good people' but, specifically because of Christ's words have sacrificed much of their lives and wealth in favor of helping their neighbor, giving to the needy, taking care of orphans and widows, tending to the sick, etc.
A fair point, of course. And one I'd not dare contradict. I have done free copywriting work for two christian organisations in the past because I felt what they did was recommendable.
-
Good points Tom. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have lumped you in with Pete, but I did think that you were attempting to pick up the argument in his stead as he'd not yet responded. At any rate I certainly appreciate your concessions. It makes it so much easier and more satisfying to argue when both sides can concede that the other side has some valid points. Getting down to the true heart of the issue seems much quicker in that case, although it's a frighteningly rare situation (Christians hold much of the blame here I feel making large brush-stroke, slipshod, and unhelpful remarks as we've seen on this very thread - assuming it's not a troll in our midst).
@unknownuser said:
Satan, I believe, is real.
As an atheist, I guess you don't mean that literally. But in what sense do you mean it?
@unknownuser said:
I said "War on Terror", and I didn't call it Christian - I said there was a a certain religious component to it.
Fair enough. Are you simply referring to the Islamic terrorist aspect or are you referring to something on our side. Maybe you could spell it out a bit for me.
@unknownuser said:
That's not what I said either. I meant that the vilification of Jews Rome wallowed in for centuries may have found a willing recipient in the young Adolf H.
Ah, that's certainly a defensible position. If you believe history as it's related in the Bible Rome certainly wasn't the first to vilify the Jews but I'd grant you that they probably played the most significant part of setting the stage for Hitler to take the idea from really bad to bat-crap crazy evil.
@unknownuser said:
The world's a whole lot bigger than the USA and Western Europe.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
-Brodie
Advertisement