God… to define is to destroy?

[BoulderHead]

I’ve observed the negativity some have as they condemn the materialistic approach of science, yet I feel ‘they’ would like nothing more than for science to ‘prove’ god exists…
There are some things I could say about that but what I’d rather do is move along to the following;

What if science found God (or to use a line I posted in another thread, ‘god’s toenail’), what would this mean?
There is a saying about familiarity breeding contempt and if there actually was a god that science could understand in a ‘material’ way, then what would this do in relation to people holding god high upon a pedestal?
What I mean is, how can God command respect if science picks him to pieces and figures out what makes him tick? Would not God be reduced in stature if ‘he’ could be explained in terms of electrons and protons?

I am reminded of a quote;

"There is, in fact, no reason to believe that any given natural phenomenon, however marvelous it may seem today, will remain forever inexplicable. Soon or later the laws governing the production of life itself will be discovered in the laboratory, and man may set up business as a creator on his own account. The thing, indeed, is not only conceivable; it is even highly probable." [H. L. Mencken, 1930]

A penny for your thoughts.

[Lifegazer]

Science cannot find God - whether God exists or not. God is not a thing within our sensations. God is, necessarily, the Whole, and the essence of all things.

[devil5_advocate]

Sup Boulderhead, long time no see, new eye avatar as well... Well i feel that science DOES pick apart God and though I am not really a religious person I know enough to know that for a religon to be wholly accurate it goes along with science; i.e. science does not contradict religon, it should supplement it. *No insult to you christians out there [:)] *

Then again it can be argued that God is what the people make Him out to be. He doesnt have to conform to the laws of science, He just has to have the faith in His followers. In that sense everyone has their own right to their believes and shouldn't let science get in the way of their religon.

Yes at the rate science is going and if it does explain god in terms of electrons and protons God will quickly lose His grandeur to all but the most pious of people.

If you science peeps think that either a) there is no God, or b) God can be explained in terms of electrons and protons, then you guys are in league with the philospher Nietzsche, who once said that God doesnt exist.

Once science picks apart religon and God, people will find it hard to look at God the same way. Best leave things the way they are. Like the old saying: Don't trouble trouble, unless trouble troubles you. Some things are better left unexplained.

And that, gentlemen, is my two cents worth of opinions. [a)]

[Another God]

Science will never 'find' anything related to god because God has been defined in such a way so as to make it...well...non-existant. God is 'everywhere'... so we shouldn't need to look very hard to see it...and we aren't seeing anything which we call 'God' are we? So we either need to re-define our thinking, or forget about God. Either way, nothing will lead to us 'finding' some part of God...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science cannot find God - whether God exists or not. God is not a thing within our sensations. God is, necessarily, the Whole, and the essence of all things.

It follows then that God has to compete with Matter, as what you denote as what God means or stand for, has already been defined under the term Matter, as that what is outside and independend of our mind, and also the source of our sensations and awareness of the world.
Your concept of God conflicts with Matter because, although both concept fulfill the same role in our experience and sensation of the world, you do not think of God as existing in a timely, spacely and changing way, but more as un unchanging existence outside of time and space. The concept of Matter however comes from the notion that all things are in constant motion/change ("Everything flows") and that the existence of Matter therefore requires time and space to exist.


Noteworthy to your point of view of what God is or is not, is just one of many (contradictionary) definitions of God. It is precisely because of this aspect of any notions of God, that science can not deal with such a concept, and why science therefore adapts to the notion of Matter instead.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate
If you science peeps think that either a) there is no God, or b) God can be explained in terms of electrons and protons, then you guys are in league with the philospher Nietzsche, who once said that God doesnt exist.

Like I explained before, the concept of God, the fact that there are contradictionary definitions of God, make the concept of God as something that cannot be dealt with by science.
This is however not the same as saying that science claims that there is no God, cause that would imply science can deal with the concept of God.

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
Like I explained before, the concept of God, the fact that there are contradictionary definitions of God, make the concept of God as something that cannot be dealt with by science.
This is however not the same as saying that science claims that there is no God, cause that would imply science can deal with the concept of God.

So you are saying essentially, from the peoples' point of view, that the borders of the definitions of God is actually something which should not be mixed with science? Sorry but i'm a bit slow on the uptake here *mind swimming*.

Also what do you mean by that by claming that science declares that there is no god that science is already dealing with the concept of god? If science declares god off limits that would be showing that science cannot or would not deal with the concept of god, no? Please enlighten this mixed up and confused soul... Thanks. [8)] [?]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate
So you are saying essentially, from the peoples' point of view, that the borders of the definitions of God is actually something which should not be mixed with science? Sorry but i'm a bit slow on the uptake here *mind swimming*.

Also what do you mean by that by claming that science declares that there is no god that science is already dealing with the concept of god? If science declares god off limits that would be showing that science cannot or would not deal with the concept of god, no? Please enlighten this mixed up and confused soul... Thanks. [8)] [?]

If God is for instance defined as acting outside of time and space, then all attempts for science to explore such a concept is rather useless. The concept of existence outside of time and space, cannot be dealt with in science, cause science explores the world in the forms it can be known and explored. This also means that all science explorations can not consitute for any proof pro- or against God.
Merely science would claim that for our understanding of the world, we do not need to adapt the concept of a God, acting outside of time and space.

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
If God is for instance defined as acting outside of time and space, then all attempts for science to explore such a concept is rather useless. The concept of existence outside of time and space, cannot be dealt with in science, cause science explores the world in the forms it can be known and explored. This also means that all science explorations can not consitute for any proof pro- or against God.
Merely science would claim that for our understanding of the world, we do not need to adapt the concept of a God, acting outside of time and space.

I see now. You have raaised a valid point. If god is seen to be working outside the concept of time and space it would be useless to deal with such a concept. So we should all just leave god the way He is, workign His mysterious ways outside our realm and grasp. [:D]

Deviating here a little, it jsut occured to me that if God exists outside space and time could God be a member of the 4th dimension? Vaguely i know that 4D beings can achieve feats impossible to us 3D people, such as putting an eraser into and taking out of a basketball without deflating it in any way, the same way we 3D people can flip people left and right which people living in a 2D world would be unable to do. So is He actually a being of the 4th dimension? just opening a topic of debate here.. [:D]

[BoulderHead]

I'm going to hold off additional comments for the time being because I think everyone posting here is doing fantastic! There's some good stuff here I'd like to discuss...

[heusdens]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate
I see now. You have raaised a valid point. If god is seen to be working outside the concept of time and space it would be useless to deal with such a concept. So we should all just leave god the way He is, workign His mysterious ways outside our realm and grasp. [:D]

Deviating here a little, it jsut occured to me that if God exists outside space and time could God be a member of the 4th dimension? Vaguely i know that 4D beings can achieve feats impossible to us 3D people, such as putting an eraser into and taking out of a basketball without deflating it in any way, the same way we 3D people can flip people left and right which people living in a 2D world would be unable to do. So is He actually a being of the 4th dimension? just opening a topic of debate here.. [:D]

I don't know what God could be or not could be.

We observe space as having 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. This is already a 4 dimensional spacetime manifold.
General relativity has linked the time dimension closer together to the 3 spatial dimensions.

My assertion about God existing outside time and space, would mean that God has no spatial and timely mode of existence at all, and is therefore unchanging. In material terms this would simply mean: inexistent, cause all forms of matter are undergoing change, motion and transformations and exist in space and time.

You go from a different path, and assume the existence of a %-th space dimension, that could fit the existence of God, and which is not observable by us.

I think some development in physics go about this direction, in the form of the M theory, which is a superior layer to string theories. M theory takes place in an 11 dimensional space (1 time, 10 spatial), where the 7 extra sptial dimensions are "compactified". String theory takes place in 10 dimensions (1 time, 9 spatial), with 6 spatial dimensions "compactified". There are 5 string theories, which in a sense are all aspects of one 'mother' theory, which is called M theory.

This is of course not a research in "finding God", but a research in finding the fundamental properties of all matter. So far, this reserach has some merits, but the exploration in this field has yet to bridge the gap between the mathematical theory, and the world of physical observations. The gap is still quite large.

For instance the major 'player' in string theory, the fundamental quanta of energy/matter on which all properties of the material world rest, the 'strings', are not detectable by ordinary particle accelerators, cause the length of these 'string' and the needed energies for their exploration, are several sizes too high for the equipment we have today. We would need particles accelerators the size of the solar system to be able to detect matter at such length scales.

M theory has also an associated cosmological theory, called 'brane cosmology'. Strings can be attached to a brane of dimensionality p, called p-branes. Collisions between branes are candidate events that could have caused a big bang to occur.

I can only schematically explain string theory, for a better understanding of this theory, I would recommend reading a string theory primer available on the net.

[Iacchus32]

Where does God exist? ... How about in the moment, where our consciousness lies, which belies the fact that we're alive? Also, doesn't time and space exist "within" the moment? As well as without? At the very least this is where the two intersect ... And yet no matter where you go, you are always there, "in the moment." Doesn't that then suggest that the moment is Eternal and, that it encompasses everything? Which then allows God to exist within time and space, as well as without?

And let's say we were able to take a snapshot of Creation as a whole (as only God could), where we pictured the Universe as only a bubble, wouldn't that then suggest that everything exists within the moment?


From the thread, What is it about the Moment? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone" ... from the song, Dust in the Wind, by Kansas.

So what is it about the moment? Except that it stands outside of time and space? ... Or, does time and space stand within it? Ahh, could this be the origin of both eternity and infinity?

Ahh, could this be the very connection to an Eternal Creator Who, stands outside of time an space? ... i.e., through the moment? So what is it about the moment that speaks to us about such things ... "our experience."

Therefore it must be like they say, how can you experience God or, for that matter anything else, if you can't experience "It" for yourself?

"Be still, and know [experience] that I am God ..." (Psalms 46:10)

[Fliption]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

A penny for your thoughts.

Hi Boulder

My thoughts are that what you're saying would be true if it really happened that way. But this would assume that all science in the future has this same process and effect that it does today. The idea that it can pick apart a glamorous thing and tear it into smaller, less glamourous things in order to understand it. But even in todays world this process leads us to an unexpected, very unclear world of quantum "stuff".

I cannot offer any possibilities but I suspect that if science ever did find a god, that it wouldn't be done in the lab the way you envision things happening today. Who knows what scientists 50,000 years from now may understand? Who knows what concepts they may have that we can't even imagine? Is it not possible that the old idea of of tearing something sexy down into non-sexy parts could be a thing of the past?

Now gimme my penny and don't think about the transaction too much or you might feel cheated. [:)]

[wuliheron]

What ethnocentric rubbish.

What would happen if science found a toenail of God? Uncounted millions and even billions of people believe science has already discovered God and they worship each and every new discovery science makes. For these people God is not some distant transcendent abstraction but a concrete reality they experience each and every day. From the bizarre behavior of quanta to the hazy obscurity of the big bang, from the dreams and nightmares of humanity to the ground under our feet these people believe God is manifest in everything.

As Allan Watts said, God may be playing peek-a-boo. If the acausal effects of Quantum Mechanics and the big bang are not magical enough for people, I'm afraid they may be in for a lifetime of disapointment. Personally, I prefer to just accept it as it presents itself.....whatever it happens to be.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
What ethnocentric rubbish.

What would happen if science found a toenail of God? Uncounted millions and even billions of people believe science has already discovered God and they worship each and every new discovery science makes. For these people God is not some distant transcendent abstraction but a concrete reality they experience each and every day. From the bizarre behavior of quanta to the hazy obscurity of the big bang, from the dreams and nightmares of humanity to the ground under our feet these people believe God is manifest in everything.

As Allan Watts said, God may be playing peek-a-boo. If the acausal effects of Quantum Mechanics and the big bang are not magical enough for people, I'm afraid they may be in for a lifetime of disapointment. Personally, I prefer to just accept it as it presents itself.....whatever it happens to be.


Hmm. This brings me to adding a new definition of God. What about the wondering (the experience thereof) of the fabulously complex material realily surrounding us and within us?
Material reality is described as it is using materialism. The experience of the way the material world realy behaves, to us as conscious beings, forms then the concept or notion of 'God'.

Can anyone agree?

[BoulderHead]

What ethnocentric rubbish. Good ol’ Wu Li, telling it like he sees it!
What would happen if science found a toenail of God? Uncounted millions and even billions of people believe science has already discovered God and they worship each and every new discovery science makes. For these people God is not some distant transcendent abstraction but a concrete reality they experience each and every day. From the bizarre behavior of quanta to the hazy obscurity of the big bang, from the dreams and nightmares of humanity to the ground under our feet these people believe God is manifest in everything.I think, however, that this is a far cry from a ‘personal’ god that even more people seem to think exists. I don’t feel such a personal entity exists, personally.
As Allan Watts said, God may be playing peek-a-boo. If the acausal effects of Quantum Mechanics and the big bang are not magical enough for people, I'm afraid they may be in for a lifetime of disapointment. Personally, I prefer to just accept it as it presents itself.....whatever it happens to be.I certainly think that there is a ‘magic’ in this universe but that doesn’t mean I would call it ‘God’ though.



Hello Fliption,
My thoughts are that what you're saying would be true if it really happened that way. But this would assume that all science in the future has this same process and effect that it does today. The idea that it can pick apart a glamorous thing and tear it into smaller, less glamourous things in order to understand it. But even in todays world this process leads us to an unexpected, very unclear world of quantum "stuff".Don’t you think, however, that this quantum ‘stuff’ (about which I know nothing) will most likely be explained in a way that omits god from the picture?
I don’t know where science will lead humanity or even what it might morph into, if anything, but if in its present state if it examines ‘god’s toenail’ all I see it finding is a clump of matter, not god. Having some unknown element in QM may provide a ‘hiding place’ for god, and are locations such as this where god will forever be found?

Is it not possible that the old idea of of tearing something sexy down into non-sexy parts could be a thing of the past?I don’t think science can avoid doing this. I think that depending on what type of god they found different things might happen, for example;
1) God is something like Zeus.
Well, here we would have a being that commands respect and ought to be feared, to be sure, but ultimately god would be just some clever arrangement of matter. Heck, it might even be possible for science to duplicate this type of entity, so I don’t see how one could ‘love’ this god, though I do see how you could live in fear of it. I think that this would lead to disrespect and rebellion eventually.
2) God is some non-personal entity, or ‘all that is’, etc.
Here I think that science could only look at the parts, perhaps never making a provable connection, and most likely having nothing more than a feeling of awe for nature. I recognize that this is enough for many people.

I’m trying my best to say what I’m thinking, but feel like I’m coming up short with my words. I’m thinking that finding a definition of god may mean that we now have something to pick apart and find fault with. To use a quote;

The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-Annie Besant

Now, I have used this quote in the past but there is a part of it which has a meaning for me that I’m sure was never conveyed to any of you who may have read it. This is the part about “What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible” which leads A. B. to deny this god as being impossible. In a way, isn’t this what happens when someone defines their view of god? If you bring it out of the closet it will be scrutinized and beaten. This is what I was trying to show in examples 1 & 2 above. Has anyone ever heard of a concept of god that wouldn’t lead to this?
So, to define god may be to destroy him. If god is material then god is a clever arrangement of matter and little more. If god is something else, then likewise there are problems…

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
The position of the atheist is a clear and reasonable one. I know nothing about God and therefore I do not believe in Him or it. What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible. I do not deny "God," which is an unknown tongue to me. I do deny your God, who is an impossibility. I am without God.
-Annie Besant

Now, I have used this quote in the past but there is a part of it which has a meaning for me that I’m sure was never conveyed to any of you who may have read it. This is the part about “What you tell me about your God is self-contradictory and is therefore incredible” which leads A. B. to deny this god as being impossible. In a way, isn’t this what happens when someone defines their view of god? If you bring it out of the closet it will be scrutinized and beaten. This is what I was trying to show in examples 1 & 2 above. Has anyone ever heard of a concept of god that wouldn’t lead to this?
So, to define god may be to destroy him. If god is material then god is a clever arrangement of matter and little more. If god is something else, then likewise there are problems…

And precisely because of that feature of all known concepts of God, it is arguable we ultimately need to drop any notions of God, cause what we need to do in fact is try to know all what we can know about the world and ourselve, in order for us to be able to be truly human.

[Mentat]

Nice thread, Boulderhead - though I really don't think it should have been in the Philosophy Forum (no offense).

My opinion is that there are millions of people who have accepted the existence of God already. These people believe that there is "proof" of God's existence, and so a scientific breakthrough (such as you describe (finding God's toenail, so to speak)) would not change their belief, so much as it would make them believe that the inevitable had finally occured.

OTOH, those that stuck to atheism, because of not wanting to submit themselves to a God of any kind# would find themselves without much choice in that matter (as there would be verifiable proof of God's existence).

# I am not saying that all (or even most) atheists stick to atheism because of such a desire for independence. This is merely the attitude of some atheists.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Mentat
Nice thread, Boulderhead - though I really don't think it should have been in the Philosophy Forum (no offense).No offense taken. Do you recall how many times I told you the same thing back in PF2?, haha! What if I said that since Mentat refused to post in religion I was left with no choice? ...don't answer that btw, I'll shoot you a PM.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
No offense taken. Do you recall how many times I told you the same thing back in PF2?, haha! What if I said that since Mentat refused to post in religion I was left with no choice? ...don't answer that btw, I'll shoot you a PM.

Yes, yes, I remember all too well the "How Do Scientists Explain Prophecy" thread, whose last couple of pages were just back and forth, me vs. you, debating something that we just weren't going to agree on. Alright, I suppose I can't debate whether this thread belongs here anymore. So, I'll continue responding until it's moved.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Science cannot find God - whether God exists or not. God is not a thing within our sensations. God is, necessarily, the Whole, and the essence of all things. But LG, didn't I question you in another thread about a claim of science being able to prove god? Is finding then not the same thing as proving. Help me out here.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

Good ol’ Wu Li, telling it like he sees it!
I think, however, that this is a far cry from a ‘personal’ god that even more people seem to think exists.

Sorry to inform you, but you're wrong. If anything, Pantheism and Panentheism have a great deal more variety than theism. For them there is no inherent contradiction between a personal deity and the universe. Many of them are just waiting for science to reach the point where it has little choice but to begin to address the deity on a more personal, emotional basis.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate;
Sup Boulderhead, long time no see, new eye avatar as well... devil5_advocate, so good to see you again!
I think you made some excellent points that I can agree with.
Then again it can be argued that God is what the people make Him out to be. He doesnt have to conform to the laws of science, He just has to have the faith in His followers. In that sense everyone has their own right to their believes and shouldn't let science get in the way of their religon.There are those who seek science to, in effect, prove their religion. Others take scientific discoveries and then fashion a god to fit. We are in complete agreement about the difficulty of looking at God the same way after science picks everything apart.

Originally posted by heusdens;
If God is for instance defined as acting outside of time and space, then all attempts for science to explore such a concept is rather useless. The concept of existence outside of time and space, cannot be dealt with in science, cause science explores the world in the forms it can be known and explored. This also means that all science explorations can not consitute for any proof pro- or against God.
Merely science would claim that for our understanding of the world, we do not need to adapt the concept of a God, acting outside of time and space.I agree.

Originally posted by Iacchus32;
Where does God exist? ... How about in the moment, where our consciousness lies, which belies the fact that we're alive? Also, doesn't time and space exist "within" the moment? As well as without? At the very least this is where the two intersect ... And yet no matter where you go, you are always there, "in the moment." Doesn't that then suggest that the moment is Eternal and, that it encompasses everything? Which then allows God to exist within time and space, as well as without?I’m not sure what it suggests, but it makes me focus somewhere just behind my eyeballs.

Originally posted by heusdens;
Hmm. This brings me to adding a new definition of God. What about the wondering (the experience thereof) of the fabulously complex material realily surrounding us and within us?
Material reality is described as it is using materialism. The experience of the way the material world realy behaves, to us as conscious beings, forms then the concept or notion of 'God'.

Can anyone agree?I think that I can.

Originally posted by heusdens;
And precisely because of that feature of all known concepts of God, it is arguable we ultimately need to drop any notions of God, cause what we need to do in fact is try to know all what we can know about the world and ourselve, in order for us to be able to be truly human.I see God as a concept only to be held internally and privately. To ‘speak his name’ would be to defile and diminish him. Heusdens, this incidentally now begins to tie into my reasoning behind that ‘ineffable’ stuff mentioned in your thread.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
Nice thread, Boulderhead - though I really don't think it should have been in the Philosophy Forum (no offense).

My opinion is that there are millions of people who have accepted the existence of God already. These people believe that there is "proof" of God's existence, and so a scientific breakthrough (such as you describe (finding God's toenail, so to speak)) would not change their belief, so much as it would make them believe that the inevitable had finally occured.

OTOH, those that stuck to atheism, because of not wanting to submit themselves to a God of any kind# would find themselves without much choice in that matter (as there would be verifiable proof of God's existence).

# I am not saying that all (or even most) atheists stick to atheism because of such a desire for independence. This is merely the attitude of some atheists.

This is a bit coloured... Someway you seem to think that the existence of God is inevitable, and that the category of existence of God is even that of a kind that is open to objective proof (scientific proof).

Whatever science may and may not find, it is ultimately to the individual to 'see' it as objective evidence for the existence of God.

Suppose for instance we come about a proven theory on what caused the Big Bang to occur. Some people would claim then, that we had proven God's existence. While others just claim, that we did not find anything more but material causes for the Big Bang to happen, which fits exactly into the vision of materialism (matter exists eternal).

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron;
Sorry to inform you, but you're wrong. If anything, Pantheism and Panentheism have a great deal more variety than theism. For them there is no inherent contradiction between a personal deity and the universe. Many of them are just waiting for science to reach the point where it has little choice but to begin to address the deity on a more personal, emotional basis.Then the Abrahamic religions comprise a minority of the populace, or do they not envision some sort of personal god?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Can you enlighten me?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then the Abrahamic religions comprise a minority of the populace, or do they not envision some sort of personal god?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Can you enlighten me?

Statistics on religion are as notoriously difficult to tabulate as ones concerning people's sex lives. Census takers have learned, for example, to first ask men how often a week they have sex. After they tell them twenty times a week or whatever, they then quickly ask them how many times they had sex last week (Oh, only three times... but I was sick!) Notably, the people who did this census where christian who have had the most difficult time understanding Pantheistic and Panentheistic cultures.

Missionaries in China and southeast Asia were shocked to learn some of their best converts were attending Buddhist temples and whatnot. When they asked these converts why they would go to the temple if they had converted to christianity they would say things like, "Oh! I'm a good Christian, but I'm also a Buddhist, Taoist, etc.!" Such inclusive viewpoints just don't tabulate well in a census much less make sense to the either-or black and white fundamentalist perspectives.

Abrahamic religions probably are the fastest growing in the world today, largely because of the unrestrained population in countries like Egypt and India, which are going to have hell to pay in the long run, and because communism has proven much more durable in Asia than in the west. Likewise, fundamentalist theistic religions tend to take root in capitalistic countries which are on the rise worldwide.

Among the top two or three best selling books worldwide are the Tao Te Ching and the Bible, but even these are slippery measures. The Bible, because it is handed out like candy and left in motel rooms and the Tao Te Ching because people often own multiple distinct transalations. Whatever the case might be, a huge percentage of the world's population is Pantheistic, Panentheistic, and Mystical rather than theistic. Statistics on mysticism in particular are extremely difficult to tabulate as they tend to be overwhelmingly unorganized and to even scoff at such attempts to label them.

Again, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is a bit coloured... Someway you seem to think that the existence of God is inevitable, and that the category of existence of God is even that of a kind that is open to objective proof (scientific proof).

Whatever science may and may not find, it is ultimately to the individual to 'see' it as objective evidence for the existence of God.

Suppose for instance we come about a proven theory on what caused the Big Bang to occur. Some people would claim then, that we had proven God's existence. While others just claim, that we did not find anything more but material causes for the Big Bang to happen, which fits exactly into the vision of materialism (matter exists eternal).

Heusdens, please remember that I am speaking hypothetically. I am saying that this is what might happen, if the existence of God could be verified by Science. This doesn't mean that I believe in God, nor indeed does it reflect much at all on my beliefs, it's just an answer to an interesting thread.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I’m not sure what it suggests, but it makes me focus somewhere just behind my eyeballs.
If God exists, God is awake, God is conscious, God is consciousness. And how do we know? ... through consciousness. And where does consciousness exist? Right smack dab in the middle of time and space ... in the moment.

That would be the "mind's eye" by the way BoulderHead.

[BoulderHead]

Wu Li,
I would agree that precise statistics on religion are difficult to tabulate. What I’ve seen of church-folk, for example, leads me to believe that no two people worship the same god. That is, when pushed for details of what God is, the answers can vary considerably. I explain this by agreeing with Karen Armstrong’s statement that the imagination is the chief religious faculty. Even if there existed only one official religion/doctrine that the entire world agreed to I still think this would be the result.
Now, to look at the matter with your view on world religion stats, then wouldn’t’ you simply have to reserve judgment on how many of the religious are of one view or another? If so, then it becomes difficult at best to arrive at any conclusion based on population.

We could argue what is meant by ‘personal god’ I suppose, but I’d have to investigate Pantheism and Panentheism to understand those views better. God is a difficult thing to define, but when I speak of a personal god I don’t mean so much the universe at large and everything in it, but something that created it (is this the ethnocentric rubbish you spoke of?). Where this god might actually reside is not for me to know.

Again, "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member."I just don’t going clubs at all. Well, unless PF is considered one.

[Fliption]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Don’t you think, however, that this quantum ‘stuff’ (about which I know nothing) will most likely be explained in a way that omits god from the picture?

Well I really didn't mean that quantum physics implies anything specific about god. I was implying that 100 years ago no one would have ever guessed that the sub-atomic world operated that way. Quantum physics has completely re-written our understanding of how reality "really" works. The classical explanations are no longer the most accurate. Likewise, what other advances in knowledge might be obtained years from now? I'm not talking about science learning additional facts to add to our lists of knowledge. I'm talking about learning things that "change" the way we view and obtain knowledge. More of a foundation change. Much like quantum physics has done.


So, to define god may be to destroy him. If god is material then god is a clever arrangement of matter and little more. If god is something else, then likewise there are problems…

While I think this may be true, it seems very similar to the probelms that we run into everytime we have discussions on whether existence is infinite or finite etc etc. There is a problem with every theory. This just gets us back into all those paradox threads. So Boulder, it seems you are suggesting that Wuli should start a thread called "The Paradox Of God" to add to his collection of things that exhibit this feature you are referring to.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well I really didn't mean that quantum physics implies anything specific about god. I was implying that 100 years ago no one would have ever guessed that the sub-atomic world operated that way. Quantum physics has completely re-written our understanding of how reality "really" works. The classical explanations are no longer the most accurate. Likewise, what other advances in knowledge might be obtained years from now? I'm not talking about science learning additional facts to add to our lists of knowledge. I'm talking about learning things that "change" the way we view and obtain knowledge. More of a foundation change. Much like quantum physics has done.Something like a paradigm shift in human knowledge and understanding brought about through scientific discovery?
Well, I think I understand you here, but though reality may be viewed in a different light, either now or in the future, those who seek a certain type of god may find a convenient place to ‘stash’ him, just as people have done in the past, in the unexplained regions…
I take note that Wu Lu is saying that many already have found god in the explained regions, and this is true enough, but whether they can defend their views before a scientific inquiry is perhaps another matter altogether.

While I think this may be true, it seems very similar to the probelms that we run into everytime we have discussions on whether existence is infinite or finite etc etc. There is a problem with every theory. This just gets us back into all those paradox threads. So Boulder, it seems you are suggesting that Wuli should start a thread called "The Paradox Of God" to add to his collection of things that exhibit this feature you are referring to. But Fliption, you are the one directly mentioning ‘paradox’ by name…
Perhaps if we both asked him nicely he might oblige. [:D]

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

We could argue what is meant by ‘personal god’ I suppose, but I’d have to investigate Pantheism and Panentheism to understand those views better. God is a difficult thing to define, but when I speak of a personal god I don’t mean so much the universe at large and everything in it, but something that created it (is this the ethnocentric rubbish you spoke of?). Where this god might actually reside is not for me to know.

You keep saying God is a difficult thing to define, but I don't really think so myself. God may be a vague and paradoxical concept like infinity, but we still have some kind of clear idea what people mean by the term. Pantheists and Panentheists can believe the universe itself is God and that God has either always existed or created the universe (ie. created him/herself) or creates and distroys everything constantly or whatever.

The paradox of existence is ultimately the focus of all beliefs about God, science, or whatever as far as I am concerned. The closer people get to attempting to rationalize or describe the paradox of existence, the closer to the foundations of religion, philosophy, and their own personal experience.

[BoulderHead]

You keep saying God is a difficult thing to define, but I don't really think so myself.
Let me use something you posted in another thread to help clarify my position;
As for a decent definition of a God, I would say God(s) are deities or divinities people worship.
Those two words now need to be defined;

Deity
n : any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Divinity
n 1: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Now, part of these definitions are acceptable to me, but another part is not 100% so. Even in these short little definitions there is room enough for huge differences in what God might actually be. Both speak of a ‘being’ and of personification of a force. To personify a force, however, just might be giving an attribute (consciousness, for example) to something that it does not merit. My preference for god is a ‘being’. For this reason I reject that a rock is god, though it may be a part of god. I do not see a rock as being conscience, though it might be something akin to a ‘toenail’, if you know what I mean.
Painting a broad stroke then, if pantheists attribute a rock with having some kind of thought or consciousness then I can only say that I have no reason to believe this at present.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
You keep saying God is a difficult thing to define, but I don't really think so myself. God may be a vague and paradoxical concept like infinity, but we still have some kind of clear idea what people mean by the term. Pantheists and Panentheists can believe the universe itself is God and that God has either always existed or created the universe (ie. created him/herself) or creates and distroys everything constantly or whatever.

What is the difference between this above concept of God, and materialism, which also merits the same concept of the world in total (except that matter can not be destroyed or created, but only can be transformed from one shape into another, like mass can be transformed into energy, and vice versa). Is it more appealing when one has a personalized view on the material world? What is the merit of this concept in explenitory power over the concept of matter?
I realy don't see it, it realy only confuses things, if you ask me.


The paradox of existence is ultimately the focus of all beliefs about God, science, or whatever as far as I am concerned. The closer people get to attempting to rationalize or describe the paradox of existence, the closer to the foundations of religion, philosophy, and their own personal experience.

I don't read all of this post of the 'paradox of existence' in this mainly cause I don't think in these terms. Instead I adapted the concept of contradiction, and calls for the need of a vision on the material world, that is including this concept of contradiction, i.e. needs a dialectical outlook on the material world.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

Deity
n : any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Divinity
n 1: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Your definition of Divinity is incorrect. A divinity in the broader sense of worldwide religions is a non-anthroporphic vision of God. It need not have any resemblance to a human being and can be the universe itself.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Your definition of Divinity is incorrect. A divinity in the broader sense of worldwide religions is a non-anthroporphic vision of God. It need not have any resemblance to a human being and can be the universe itself. Well, there was more of course (dictionary.com was the source). I dispute the 'correctness' of any definition of god. What I would not dispute is that what is considered god to some is simply not god to me.

[wuliheron]

Just about every dictionary has its limitations and, of course, many of these are ethnocentric.

Certainly people have different ideas about what is and isn't God or Divine, but like anything else in the "real" world these can be measured, catagorized, labeled, researched, observed, etc. and a meaningful semantics developed around the concept like any other. Exactly how meaningful is another question altogether and, of course, the subject of this thread.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Just about every dictionary has its limitations and, of course, many of these are ethnocentric.

Certainly people have different ideas about what is and isn't God or Divine, but like anything else in the "real" world these can be measured, catagorized, labeled, researched, observed, etc. and a meaningful semantics developed around the concept like any other. Exactly how meaningful is another question altogether and, of course, the subject of this thread.

The meaning of such a thread is to explore how people actually define God. If there is actually a conversation in which claims are made wether or not the existence of God can or can not be proven, the first thing to do is to actually find a consistent and not self-contradictionary definition of such an entity.

What we find here is that there actually are more entities, labelled under the same category as God, but with totally different content and meaning, in a way that do not make up for a well defined entity.
Each individual entity may be well defined, and we could in theory then be able to state someting meaningfull of the existence of the entity, but not to the category of entities in total, labelled God.

It might come out that each and every entity, when explored thoroughly, have no existence of themselves (in the material sense), yet they are concepts and at least the concept has existence, and they belong to a category of entities, labeled God.
There is no doubt that the category of entities labeled God itself is an existing entity, beloning to the category of existence of the mind.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by heusdens
The meaning of such a thread is to explore how people actually define God. If there is actually a conversation in which claims are made wether or not the existence of God can or can not be proven, the first thing to do is to actually find a consistent and not self-contradictionary definition of such an entity.

God is an inherently paradoxical concept. What is needed for such paradoxical concepts as God or Infinity is not a definition which doesn't contradict itself, but a useful definition. To insist God or infinity require less than vague definitions is just asking for trouble.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
God is an inherently paradoxical concept. What is needed for such paradoxical concepts as God or Infinity is not a definition which doesn't contradict itself, but a useful definition. To insist God or infinity require less than vague definitions is just asking for trouble.

You are right about the fact that we can not comprehend reality without contradiction.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron
God is an inherently paradoxical concept. What is needed for such paradoxical concepts as God or Infinity is not a definition which doesn't contradict itself, but a useful definition. To insist God or infinity require less than vague definitions is just asking for trouble. Did you mean 'something more than vague definitions'?
If we have come to a point where only vague definitions will work, then I think this now begins to tie back into the topic of: God...to define is to destroy?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Did you mean 'something more than vague definitions'?
If we have come to a point where only vague definitions will work, then I think this now begins to tie back into the topic of: God...to define is to destroy?

Yes, and what about it? Throughout human history we have come up with many more concepts, which later proofed wrong, and were replaced with better concepts. If the conclusion is that we have to abandon any notion of God, then what about it?

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, and what about it? Throughout human history we have come up with many more concepts, which later proofed wrong, and were replaced with better concepts. If the conclusion is that we have to abandon any notion of God, then what about it? Well, alot of 'better' concepts don't seem much different to me than rehashed versions of the 'old stuff'. I meant more that God must remain vague because to say, for example, that God is a rock, or god is a bearded man sitting back in golden rocking chair, isn't going to carry much weight. At least, not to me.
My conclusion is not, as you thought, that we might have to abandon any notion of God, but rather that we must always keep a vague sorta mysterious God, and I think this may remain so despite scientific discoveries that lay in the future.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, alot of 'better' concepts don't seem much different to me than rehashed versions of the 'old stuff'. I meant more that God must remain vague because to say, for example, that God is a rock, or god is a bearded man sitting back in golden rocking chair, isn't going to carry much weight. At least, not to me.
My conclusion is not, as you thought, that we might have to abandon any notion of God, but rather that we must always keep a vague sorta mysterious God, and I think this may remain so despite scientific discoveries that lay in the future.

Well, I think in the long run, this might just be the case.
At least there would cease to be a role for institutional religion as such.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Did you mean 'something more than vague definitions'?
If we have come to a point where only vague definitions will work, then I think this now begins to tie back into the topic of: God...to define is to destroy?

Non-vague definitions of words are the exception, not the rule in natural language. Still, words are incredibly useful and the definitions of some become narrower while others become vaguer.

Traditionally, creating narrower definitions of God and the supernatural in general has been accomplished by science and technology as much as anything. Few today believe lightening bolts are thrown by Zeus or are supernatural. However, this is not to say that creating a non-vague definition of a God is impossible or would destroy the concept.

Spinoza's Pantheism, for example, is a predominantly non-vague formal western philosophical definition of God. He worshiped the universe itself as God and believed his emotional life was an expression of this relationship. With the modern discovery of the brain being hardwired for religious experience, his idea seems to have gained a bit of support. If, as Pantheists often assert, our entire intellectual life originates with our emotional life (which the evidence to date does support) it will further corroborate the validity of such a viewpoint.

[pelastration]

The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").

From our very existing and proceedings and developments, we HAVE to conclude that no abstract definition of anything (including God) will last forever. Our insights are constantly changing.
This means for any 'God' to survive in a changing world, the definition or concept of 'God' has to change accordingly, or else it will be put in the garbage can of history.

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what God could be or not could be.

We observe space as having 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. This is already a 4 dimensional spacetime manifold.
General relativity has linked the time dimension closer together to the 3 spatial dimensions.

My assertion about God existing outside time and space, would mean that God has no spatial and timely mode of existence at all, and is therefore unchanging. In material terms this would simply mean: inexistent, cause all forms of matter are undergoing change, motion and transformations and exist in space and time.

You go from a different path, and assume the existence of a %-th space dimension, that could fit the existence of God, and which is not observable by us.

I think some development in physics go about this direction, in the form of the M theory, which is a superior layer to string theories. M theory takes place in an 11 dimensional space (1 time, 10 spatial), where the 7 extra sptial dimensions are "compactified". String theory takes place in 10 dimensions (1 time, 9 spatial), with 6 spatial dimensions "compactified". There are 5 string theories, which in a sense are all aspects of one 'mother' theory, which is called M theory.

This is of course not a research in "finding God", but a research in finding the fundamental properties of all matter. So far, this reserach has some merits, but the exploration in this field has yet to bridge the gap between the mathematical theory, and the world of physical observations. The gap is still quite large.

For instance the major 'player' in string theory, the fundamental quanta of energy/matter on which all properties of the material world rest, the 'strings', are not detectable by ordinary particle accelerators, cause the length of these 'string' and the needed energies for their exploration, are several sizes too high for the equipment we have today. We would need particles accelerators the size of the solar system to be able to detect matter at such length scales.

M theory has also an associated cosmological theory, called 'brane cosmology'. Strings can be attached to a brane of dimensionality p, called p-branes. Collisions between branes are candidate events that could have caused a big bang to occur.

I can only schematically explain string theory, for a better understanding of this theory, I would recommend reading a string theory primer available on the net.

Woah, i leave the thread for one day, come back the same time another night and it jumps from a single page to 4 pages full...nice work guys. Well yeah, I'm actually borrowing the concept from the string theory, which i recently read about. So what if god is really such a being? Won't that be interesting ? [<:)]

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
This is a bit coloured... Someway you seem to think that the existence of God is inevitable, and that the category of existence of God is even that of a kind that is open to objective proof (scientific proof).

Whatever science may and may not find, it is ultimately to the individual to 'see' it as objective evidence for the existence of God.

Suppose for instance we come about a proven theory on what caused the Big Bang to occur. Some people would claim then, that we had proven God's existence. While others just claim, that we did not find anything more but material causes for the Big Bang to happen, which fits exactly into the vision of materialism (matter exists eternal).

Talking about the Big Bang what is the latest news? Did the chicken lay the egg or did the egg hatch the chicken? In another words, how did the universe start before the Big Bang or more accurately, how did the Big Bang come about? Was it inevitable that clumps of gas would heat up and compress to a point where it would explode inot the universe, forming space dust and so on and so forth? This brings me to another part of the question. If the Big Bang just occured like that what, or should I say who, caused it? God? Or was it jsut pure science of the matter...

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well I really didn't mean that quantum physics implies anything specific about god. I was implying that 100 years ago no one would have ever guessed that the sub-atomic world operated that way. Quantum physics has completely re-written our understanding of how reality "really" works. The classical explanations are no longer the most accurate. Likewise, what other advances in knowledge might be obtained years from now? I'm not talking about science learning additional facts to add to our lists of knowledge. I'm talking about learning things that "change" the way we view and obtain knowledge. More of a foundation change. Much like quantum physics has done.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, to define god may be to destroy him. If god is material then god is a clever arrangement of matter and little more. If god is something else, then likewise there are problems…

While I think this may be true, it seems very similar to the probelms that we run into everytime we have discussions on whether existence is infinite or finite etc etc. There is a problem with every theory. This just gets us back into all those paradox threads. So Boulder, it seems you are suggesting that Wuli should start a thread called "The Paradox Of God" to add to his collection of things that exhibit this feature you are referring to.


under the part of defining god maybe to destroy him: IMO, if science can supplement the religon, or in this case, god, then there should be no problem. But to a certain extent i wanna agree with you Fliption. Science's duty is to make clear the unknown, shedding light on the little mystics and mysteries in life that we take for granted, like say in Newton's time gravity. However, taking away that bit of mystic and magic as to why we are all walking on the ground and not floating and flying around would to a certain extent take away power from a god that some people believe in who is ressponsible for causing gravity. Its like, oh! so its the earth's mass at the core pulling us down and not some great god of ours. Darn! Well in some cases like that science does 'destroy' a little of God. That was all, of course, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree. [:D]

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, alot of 'better' concepts don't seem much different to me than rehashed versions of the 'old stuff'. I meant more that God must remain vague because to say, for example, that God is a rock, or god is a bearded man sitting back in golden rocking chair, isn't going to carry much weight. At least, not to me.
My conclusion is not, as you thought, that we might have to abandon any notion of God, but rather that we must always keep a vague sorta mysterious God, and I think this may remain so despite scientific discoveries that lay in the future.

So you say that to define god is to destroy? That having a vague god is the best kind of god? Beg your pardon but isnt that like putting one's faith into a vague belief? How so will that help you when you are in trouble, psychologically and emotionally and spiritually?

[devil5_advocate]

Originally posted by heusdens
From our very existing and proceedings and developments, we HAVE to conclude that no abstract definition of anything (including God) will last forever. Our insights are constantly changing.
This means for any 'God' to survive in a changing world, the definition or concept of 'God' has to change accordingly, or else it will be put in the garbage can of history.

Heusdens, i find what you've said to be particularly true. Just as surely as civillisations rise and fall, so will their concepts and thoughts go with them, leaving behind only records of what they believed in. Though this will help historians no doubt I dont think that they would have gained any converts of faith because they recorded they worshipped the Sun god.. would they? God will change with the times, or else the civillisation would probably have ceased to exist.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by devil5_advocate
So you say that to define god is to destroy?No, I am asking a question here, not proclaiming it to be true.
That having a vague god is the best kind of god? No, not the best kind, but perhaps the only kind that can survive close scrutiny. I meant it more in line with your response to Fliption concerning gravity/mass/god. If science dissects it gravity gets related to mass, not god.
Beg your pardon but isnt that like putting one's faith into a vague belief?I would consider this beside the point. What one wishes to believe is their own business of course. But since you mentioned it I’d say that God seems pretty vague to me, how about you?
How so will that help you when you are in trouble, psychologically and emotionally and spiritually?Again, I consider this beside the point. No comment.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by wuliheron;
Traditionally, creating narrower definitions of God and the supernatural in general has been accomplished by science and technology as much as anything. Few today believe lightening bolts are thrown by Zeus or are supernatural. However, this is not to say that creating a non-vague definition of a God is impossible or would destroy the concept.Yes, I think I can see what you’re getting at here and I can see how it tends to refute the argument that vagueness is necessary in light of scientific advancements. I will think more on this point, Wu Li, and see what comes to my mind.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by pelastration
The question "God ... to define is to destroy" has two "human" aspects: a social impact (if we can give a final definition or image or formula of God ... will it destroy religious institutions - like churches, sekts, ..), and the personal impact (how will individuals react on that"knowledge").

Actually the latter one, to replace the religious beliefs in deities, the only attempt made succesfull, is to have people scientifically educated.

To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.

And we better take care here, that the science education budgets are increasing to fulfill that goal, instead of decreasing (as they have in many industrial nations; for instance the science/education budget in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2002 were alsmost cut in half!)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
To overcome all forms of superstition, religion, ignorance and stubbornness, we must therefore provide well founded scientific education for the masses.
Nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... You see isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?

[BoulderHead]

It reminded me very much of Alexander.
Isn't just about everything brainwashing anyway?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
It reminded me very much of Alexander.
Isn't just about everything brainwashing anyway?
If so, then how can you tell? Whereas coming from a Communist country, I can see that he has a point.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Nothing more than deterministic brainwashing ... You see isn't this what freedom of religion is all about, to allow us to make up our own minds?

No, it is what freedom on a human scale is about. To set forth one's own future, and free oneself of any narrowmindedness. Freedom is the knowledge about necessity.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
No, it is what freedom on a human scale is about. To set forth one's own future, and free oneself of any narrowmindedness. Freedom is the knowledge about necessity.
What about the freedom to learn from one's mistakes? If we put too many restrictions on what freedom is supposed to entail, if nothing more than to root out any possible "narrow mindedness," then how much freedom does that leave us? And, by the time I start hearing "my way or the highway," then I realize that maybe people don't deserve their freedom, although it does indeed exist.

I'm sorry, you can't have freedom without the freedom of religion.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about the freedom to learn from one's mistakes? If we put too many restrictions on what freedom is supposed to entail, if nothing more than to root out any possible "narrow mindedness," then how much freedom does that leave us? And, by the time I start hearing "my way or the highway," then I realize that maybe people don't deserve their freedom, although it does indeed exist.

I'm sorry, you can't have freedom without the freedom of religion.

Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Would it imply mankind would no longer be free as religion goes extinct? I don't think so.
Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.

Besides that, if you take away our right to our beliefs, then you take away our freedom. This is the one fundamental idea (I believe) which made the United States so prosperous.

[BoulderHead]

I don't advocate force. I want freedom from force, actually. There need not be any force used against people to make them surrender religious beliefs. That would only drive it underground where it might become even more powerful.

They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don't advocate force. I want freedom from force, actually. There need not be any force used against people to make them surrender religious beliefs. That would under drive it underground where it might become even more powerful.

They know that we represent reason and science, and, however confident they may be in their beliefs, they fear that we will overthrow their gods. Not ncessarily through any deliberate act, but in a subtler fashion. Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor but they have few followers now."
Arthur C. Clarke
If you lay something to rest, you better be sure to give it a proper burial, otherwise it will come back to haunt you.

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you lay something to rest, you better be sure to give it a proper burial, otherwise it will come back to haunt you. But on the other hand if it simply dies and rots away, why bother with a funeral?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
But on the other hand if it simply dies and rots away, why bother with a funeral? It's like I said ... Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.

[BoulderHead]

Ok, let me try to get back to my topic;
I think there is a relationship in this topic to science being involved so intentionally with the material world that If a religion proclaims a ‘cow’ to be sacred, for example, that science will not agree and explain a cow as a biological creature. If a rock is proclaimed to be ‘holy’ then science will say the rock is just so much mineral matter. If God is proclaimed to be fire, earth, wind, etc, then science will explain this away too. In short, if you are able to define god as something we are able to test and experiment on then after testing and experimentation it may/will never be ruled as god, just some element of the natural world or force of nature (and note that whether god might actually be any of those things is a tad beside the point here). So, barring absolute knowledge god can never be ruled out of the picture with 100% certainty. But, with each stone unturned by science as we go along, god will never be hiding under it.
On a more personal level, if you tell me that God exists I might say; “yes, you might be right”. But, if you define your god to be living inside the heart of a palm tree I would tell you “I doubt it”. By saying that god is everything you present an un-testable and I think ‘vague’ concept of god that one may choose to believe or not. If god ‘hides’ in the mysterious, the unexplained, the un-testable, ‘he’ has a better chance of being believed in.

[edit]
I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.[:(]

[devil5_advocate]

I don't how to put this in a way that I'm certain Wu Li will accept, but I'd like to think I'm trying to.

Haha, one always hopes....that is man's last right when all's said and done.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Before we can answer this we need to establish whether there was anything substantial to religion in the first place, otherwise, it's not abouts to die.


The substantiability of religion is inherently there on the basis of the limited and relative knowledge we have had and always will have, although our knowledge is ever growing and improving.


Besides that, if you take away our right to our beliefs, then you take away our freedom. This is the one fundamental idea (I believe) which made the United States so prosperous.

Eh. You mean an idea that made so many other countries to suffer?

You have to seperate freedom from religion.
There is no implication that people would have less freedom when they are free of religious beliefs or superstition.

If that is not the case, then please proof that to me.

In the end we have to deal with only human freedom. Any human freedom stops where it limits some other humans freedom. So freedom is an inherently inter-human relation, it must be based on how all humans relate to each other. And one of the ways humans relate to each other, is through the economy.

And we still have to consider that the way the current economy in fact works, makes in some places of the world people terrible rich, and somehwere else, makes people terribly poor.

Which then can be stated as that some of the economic mechanisms, that exist, are harmfull for human freedom. Which urges us to rethink how the economy works, and that an economy that painfully hurts the freedom of a large amount of the population, while on the other side, providing excess of goods for a minority, can not be a good concept of how the economy should work, provided the fact that economic relations and activities, serve the purpose of setting humans free, provide for their real needs, and so on.

This could in fact mean, that - in order to liberate a majority of people that suffer under these conditions - we need to limit the (economic) freedom of a minority, that profit from these existing relations. All goaled towards providing an equal amount of freedom to all human beings.

Which is a human goal, and what is freedom all about.