Religious people: what is your level of observance?

The Batlord · 08-24-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

I'm sorry but Paine is simply using mathematics as a guise to fancy up his real argument: God must exist because there has to have been a "first mover", and this is something I have already addressed by quoting Carl Sagan. Perhaps God was the "first mover", but then where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?

If "God" must be an immutable "first mover", why not save a step and conclude that physics does not need a "first mover"?

Exactly. The whole argument is just special pleading to believe in magic.

SIRIUSB · 08-24-2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Exactly. The whole argument is just special pleading to believe in magic.

The definition of Magick (magic as parlor tricks) is the Art and Science of causing Change to occur with the conformity of Will.

The Batlord · 08-24-2011, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIRIUSB

The definition of Magick (magic as parlor tricks) is the Art and Science of causing Change to occur with the conformity of Will.

Uh...cool. Doesn't really affect what I said, though.

GeddyBass2112 · 08-24-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

I'm sorry but Paine is simply using mathematics as a guise to fancy up his real argument: God must exist because there has to have been a "first mover", and this is something I have already addressed by quoting Carl Sagan. Perhaps God was the "first mover", but then where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?

If "God" must be an immutable "first mover", why not save a step and conclude that physics does not need a "first mover"?

Physics merely explains the properties which matter holds and how things in this world interact with each other. It cannot explain anything outside of these things.

Every process we know requires initiation by some outside force. Even the most basic of processes require this.

As to the origins of God, this is a trick question. The deist God is a relatively simple (but effective) Creator. This question to my mind is only applicable when you get the prayer-answering, sin-punishing, humanity-judging God of the Bible and Qur'an. Why do I think this? Because much of this is completely and utterly against what we know to be possible in the real world (through scientific principles). IF you take away all these impossible elements, nothing about the idea of a Creator God goes against any sensible scientific and rational mindset.

Indeed, Stephen Jay Gould actually proposed this same theory, that of a miracle-free religion, and Thomas Jefferson was of a similar opinion (see the Jefferson Bible for example).

SIRIUSB · 08-24-2011, 02:06 PM

In the 17th century the French rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes, had broken with the monistic conceptions of the Renaissance to propose that mind and body were totally separate. To carry it further, he postulated that the province of human intellect was
separate from the realm of the physical universe.

This is also reflected in the cosmological ideas of the Tantrics with consciousness (subjective universe separate from the objective universe) reflecting upon itself and beginning the process of creating an individual personal reality / physical universe.

My belief is that the physics of the objective universe is natural ordering and vibrational formula, from the Big Bang.

All of this works without the need of a Creator /God / First Mover.

GeddyBass2112 · 08-24-2011, 02:18 PM

^you can't prove that any more than I can prove my deist God. But I know which is more likely.

The Batlord · 08-25-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

Physics merely explains the properties which matter holds and how things in this world interact with each other. It cannot explain anything outside of these things.

Every process we know requires initiation by some outside force. Even the most basic of processes require this.

As to the origins of God, this is a trick question. The deist God is a relatively simple (but effective) Creator. This question to my mind is only applicable when you get the prayer-answering, sin-punishing, humanity-judging God of the Bible and Qur'an. Why do I think this? Because much of this is completely and utterly against what we know to be possible in the real world (through scientific principles). IF you take away all these impossible elements, nothing about the idea of a Creator God goes against any sensible scientific and rational mindset.

Indeed, Stephen Jay Gould actually proposed this same theory, that of a miracle-free religion, and Thomas Jefferson was of a similar opinion (see the Jefferson Bible for example).

Alright, so if god is subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe, and the universe needed something to get it started, what about god? If the universe needed a god to get started, what did god need? Sounds to me like you're right back where you started.

GeddyBass2112 · 08-25-2011, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Alright, so if god is subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe, and the universe needed something to get it started, what about god? If the universe needed a god to get started, what did god need? Sounds to me like you're right back where you started.

Simple answer is: we don't know. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang and so we cannot impose any properties on God that we cannot actively PROVE with science.

SIRIUSB · 08-25-2011, 01:54 PM

The rational answers are
1 we don't know
2 god needed a creator
3 there is no god

I'm shooting for #3

SIRIUSB · 08-25-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeddyBass2112

Simple answer is: we don't know. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang and so we cannot impose any properties on God that we cannot actively PROVE with science.

The same could be said about the god myth, difference is that science is pretty sure there at was at least a Big Bang.

View Poll Results: Your level of observance?
Non-practicing/secular form of religion	20	43.48%
A little observant	3	6.52%
Middle-of-the-road observance	11	23.91%
Strict adherence to religious rules	4	8.70%
Don't know	8	17.39%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

08-24-2011, 02:18 PM	#336 (permalink)
GeddyBass2112 Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Posts: 165	^you can't prove that any more than I can prove my deist God. But I know which is more likely. __________________ Cello fund: $300/$750.

08-24-2011, 02:06 PM	#335 (permalink)
SIRIUSB Luciferian Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 278	In the 17th century the French rationalist philosopher Rene Descartes, had broken with the monistic conceptions of the Renaissance to propose that mind and body were totally separate. To carry it further, he postulated that the province of human intellect was separate from the realm of the physical universe. This is also reflected in the cosmological ideas of the Tantrics with consciousness (subjective universe separate from the objective universe) reflecting upon itself and beginning the process of creating an individual personal reality / physical universe. My belief is that the physics of the objective universe is natural ordering and vibrational formula, from the Big Bang. All of this works without the need of a Creator /God / First Mover.

08-25-2011, 01:54 PM	#339 (permalink)
SIRIUSB Luciferian Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 278	The rational answers are 1 we don't know 2 god needed a creator 3 there is no god I'm shooting for #3