Is GOD real?

[SmitEvo]

out there;199466 wrote:
i haven't gone back to read the entire thread, yet... but i will once i get home from work. i'm a bit worried that this topic may have gone awry (as nearly every discussion here does).

or instead of awry it was just stronger public opinion to one side than the other....

[HandoEX]

This post is deleted!

[out there]

guys, i must say that i am really surprised at how this thread went... i really wasn't sure what to expect, but i thought it would get ugly (as many religious discussions do). having been around for the life of this board, i've seen so many things turn sour and get locked or deleted that i stopped reading and posting for quite a while.
i'm glad to see that many of the regulars here have matured and stopped their ad hominems in favor of a more level-headed approach to disagreements. i will grant that the most difficult position to hold (agnostic) is represented by the guys that i would expect, and so does not reflect poorly on the people that walk the razor edge of theism. it heartens me to read so many people stating different positions without name-calling... i don't know what to say. chuck, wes and jim (and i'm sure others helped through the years) seem to have done a great job leading by example.

it has taken me a fair number of years wrestling internally and externally (with a catholic family) about my stance on the non/existence of an infinite entity. i will not get into the finer points, but i will say that i'm confident to declare that there is something out there, i cannot indicate with more specificity my beliefs.

one thing that has occurred to me, that seems to be overlooked by so many religious zealots and fundamentalists, is that jesus taught love, unconditional and unbound love for everyone: no ifs or buts, all-encompassing love for each other regardless of creed, position, actions, background or physique. i don't necessarily feel that one must adhere to the dogma of a religious sect (please, excuse the pejorative term, but they are all sects) to really be "close to god" or "holy." i believe that what one should do is live a virtuous life, be a good person, treat people fairly and be honest (with the world and yourself).
a man can repeat the apostles' creed, lord's prayer, hail mary and -insert preferred religious doctrine- until death while beating his wife and sodomizing his child... yet still be considered a better person than most because he goes to church every sunday and does the former list of rituals. actions speak louder than words, and the man that takes it on the chin from his boss for not cheating a senile old customer and doesn't go to church because he works two jobs to feed and clothe his family will get my support because he is doing what jesus would do. i use that because it should make you think differently about the phrase "what would jesus do?"
in the end, life isn't about using people as means to reach ends; it's about people being the ends. if you're curious, kant discusses this in one of his shorter works. i hate much of what kant says, but here... he is spot on.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt

please, excuse the crude language and lack of delineation where needed, but this is in the interest of the message, not meta-principles governing it

[DaveH]

Going to church is def not a requirement, but it is a good place to get together with people with similar interests/beliefs and hang out, and discuss the things you share in common (sorta like this forum is for car people). It also helps to have those friends from church inspire you and also hold you accountable when you screw up.

[out there]

correct, though organized religion may be the scapegoat of many of my rants, it does serve a purpose. much as i rail against the joke that this is a land with a separation between church and state (even though it's not explicitly stated, so i think it's only in the minds of most people here), i know that politics and religion will forever be intertwined; locke and hobbes knew this, jefferson and his cohorts knew this. truth of the matter is, organized religion makes people easier to govern; largely, because they control themselves - hitler was no fool, stalin was.

as i was mentioning earlier, we should be treating people as having intrinsic value, going to a church regularly is something you don't (necessarily) do for the sermon, communion or prayer, you do it because it gives you a sense of community and togetherness with people of similar beliefs. things come and go, as a member of various other boards on the net, i can tell you that i see a fair number of people come and go on dsm boards because they're there on the premise of discussing issues with their car... not (always) because of the community. a church, on the other hand, is something that you typically participate in until death. you are born into a church (i know what i said earlier, but this is being less aggressive and more specific) and welcomed with open arms no matter who you are; in this aspect, churches encourage christ-ian love. by the same token, sects (read: cults) require some membership qualifications be met (ie owning something) before you'll get the time of day.

i didn't fully understand this until i came across a friend that owns a small store which i hadn't visited in several months. i apologized for not coming by, because i hadn't been playing much music while in college... and he said that it didn't matter, just stop by anytime. that hit me like a truck. "what? i don't have to be looking to buy something? but... but... how will you stay open? don't you need business?" it's not about the money, money is just a means; it's about the people and the togetherness that we all share, the mutuality of being human and not using each other.

money, things, those come and go all the time. people, life, love, family, friends - these are the things that make life worth living, these are what we americans take for granted everyday. being thankful for all of the joys that give life meaning and accepting the hardships as just matters of things... these are things that you don't need "god" to do. if "god" or "christ" is the crutch that gets you going and that helps you along into living virtuously, so much the better; but, if you can manage to live as i mentioned without support from the infinite entity... my hat is off to you.

that being said, i feel that this is a good place to ask the question: how sure are you that there is no unmoved mover? no all-powerful being in control of everything? how sure are you, a finite three-dimensional being, that you can possibly understand the infinitude and magnificence of this infinite universe well enough to state definitively: "there is no god, no supreme being? to put a finer point on this question, can you even wrap your head around the concept of "infinite"? consider

[kylush]

out there;199515 wrote:
guys, i must say that i am really surprised at how this thread went... i really wasn't sure what to expect, but i thought it would get ugly (as many religious discussions do). having been around for the life of this board, i've seen so many things turn sour and get locked or deleted that i stopped reading and posting for quite a while.
i'm glad to see that many of the regulars here have matured and stopped their ad hominems in favor of a more level-headed approach to disagreements. i will grant that the most difficult position to hold (agnostic) is represented by the guys that i would expect, and so does not reflect poorly on the people that walk the razor edge of theism. it heartens me to read so many people stating different positions without name-calling... i don't know what to say. chuck, wes and jim (and i'm sure others helped through the years) seem to have done a great job leading by example.

it has taken me a fair number of years wrestling internally and externally (with a catholic family) about my stance on the non/existence of an infinite entity. i will not get into the finer points, but i will say that i'm confident to declare that there is something out there, i cannot indicate with more specificity my beliefs.

one thing that has occurred to me, that seems to be overlooked by so many religious zealots and fundamentalists, is that jesus taught love, unconditional and unbound love for everyone: no ifs or buts, all-encompassing love for each other regardless of creed, position, actions, background or physique. i don't necessarily feel that one must adhere to the dogma of a religious sect (please, excuse the pejorative term, but they are all sects) to really be "close to god" or "holy." i believe that what one should do is live a virtuous life, be a good person, treat people fairly and be honest (with the world and yourself).
a man can repeat the apostles' creed, lord's prayer, hail mary and -insert preferred religious doctrine- until death while beating his wife and sodomizing his child... yet still be considered a better person than most because he goes to church every sunday and does the former list of rituals. actions speak louder than words, and the man that takes it on the chin from his boss for not cheating a senile old customer and doesn't go to church because he works two jobs to feed and clothe his family will get my support because he is doing what jesus would do. i use that because it should make you think differently about the phrase "what would jesus do?"
in the end, life isn't about using people as means to reach ends; it's about people being the ends. if you're curious, kant discusses this in one of his shorter works. i hate much of what kant says, but here... he is spot on.
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/ikfpm10.txt

please, excuse the crude language and lack of delineation where needed, but this is in the interest of the message, not meta-principles governing it

See the thing is though, jesus taught that you arn't saved by being a good person, or going to church, or any thing that you do... You're saved by the grace of god. If you are following and believing in him, you should want to follow his laws, and please him, aka be a good person, but being a good person does NOT save you.

[out there]

ahh, but you're getting caught up in the meta-principle. here is a better way to look at this problem:
would you rather be employed by a man who only pays you a living wage because the law enforces it or a man who pays you what you're worth?

the answer is obviously the latter. if you're only behaving well and treating others fairly because you think there is a god watching you to make sure you don't screw up, than you're just as morally black as the man who only beats his wife when no one is looking. you should be doing the right thing because it's the right thing, not because someone will tattle on you if you do otherwise. that's one reason why kant was so amazing, he created a sound ethics system without bringing in any god.

if memory serves correctly, this is just one of the inconsistencies in the new testament.

[DaveH]

out there;199557 wrote:
ahh, but you're getting caught up in the meta-principle. here is a better way to look at this problem:
would you rather be employed by a man who only pays you a living wage because the law enforces it or a man who pays you what you're worth?

the answer is obviously the latter. if you're only behaving well and treating others fairly because you think there is a god watching you to make sure you don't screw up <snip>

Thats not what Klush said, or what the bible teaches. God isn't up there watching you just waiting to say "gotcha". If you believe and follow god, you will naturally become "the guy that pays you what you are worth" to use your analogy.

[kylush]

DaveH;199585 wrote:
Thats not what Klush said, or what the bible teaches. God isn't up there watching you just waiting to say "gotcha". If you believe and follow god, you will naturally become "the guy that pays you what you are worth" to use your analogy.

Exactly....

[Spec_R]

lol My friends and I had this discussion while we were drunk one night. 4 guys talking about religious and love stuffs. weird huh? lol

anyways, yes I believe in God and Jesus.
why? because I feel that we did not evolve from monkeys or any of those kind of BS. If so then why are there still other type of monkeys that haven't evolve yet and why (us) humans already reached our stage of evolution today?

We came from some comet that hit the earth about a billion years ago and that little cell turned into a little thing which evolved to who we are today?? LOL
OMG, do you know how detail or complicated on how the human body works like? Eyes, nose, mouth, ears, touch, feel, heart, and on top of that our brains is even more complicated!.. All of those were not done by a cell that came from some stupid rock falling from the sky one day and we evolved from that due to good sunlights and weather... LOL

There's more information I wanna write out but it's 6 am in the morning and I havn't sleep yet so whatever... what are your thoughts?

[out there]

well, dave, it does seem that it has been spun into a chicken or the egg situation; i'm not exactly sure how to respond to it.
"following the lord in actions, but not believing" vs "believing in the lord leading to proper actions"

it is a point worthy of attention, just not at this hour (for me).

before i depart, spec-r needs a response: let's entertain the notion of life coming from this comet - where did it originate? how much time are you allowing for evolution?
in the instance of an infinite timeline, anything can happen, unless it defies the laws of physics/thermodynamics. now keep in mind, these laws are only well-substantiated theories AND they are only tested on this planet. euclid was right, the shortest distance between to points is a straight line... unless you're working with the surface of a sphere. what about introducing another 1-8 dimensions? is the straight line, in xyz axes terms, still the shortest distance. start adding unknowns into the equation, and you start to see that you really know far less than you thought.

[Guest]

This has turned into a great discussion. For the most part I am somewhere in between out there and Dave in my beliefs. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, and I believe in evolution (of some sort.....heck even Pope John II believed in evolution to a degree). I'm not saying we came from monkeys, but I do think we evolved from caveman/cro-magnon, etc... and don't feel that this is a contradiction to the word of God. Who's to say God isn't evolving us to suit the environments that we currently live in? I mean, lets just look at the different races of people on earth. Darker skinned people originate from near the equator, lighter skinned people tend to be closer to the poles. Like it or not, slavery also influenced the traits of many races of people due to selective breeding (only the biggest/strongest allowed to breed....this was not just limited to black people...slavery existed well before America was "discovered"), this is a form of evolution in my book.

[thrash]

Genetic mutation - the process by which the fundamental genetic features of an organism change -- obviously exists because its so easy to observe and perform experimentally. Evolution has a few core components that people use interchangably and thus cause problems.

The part of "evolution" that nobody has demonstrated experimentally, and which a lot of people have a problem with, is what i call "autobiogenesis", or the notion that life arose from non-life. The theory goes that a long time ago, there was just the right mix of chemicals, temperature, and so on, and a single-celled organism just self-organized.

Absent of any experimental evidence to show anything like this, it's hard for me to accept this. This is the kind of conclusion you'd come up with if you absolutely, steadfastly, refused to accept the possibility of anything supernatural.

To the best of our minds conception and ability, an invisible omnipotent being creating a life form on this planet, is a much more plausible than something on one side of "life" miraculously turning itself into something on the other side of "life", and thus becoming alive.

Also, there are some combinatorial problems with the fitness function and natural selection. There haven't been enough years (no matter how old you think the earth is) for all of the complex features we see in organisms to have gained complexity and gained "intelligence" via incremental mutations.

It turns out that the difference between a solid colored cat and a spotted one is just one or two bits (yes, in the computer sense of the word) of DNA, not zillions and zillions of changes. And while natural selection may favor a spotted animal over a solid one, the commonly held beleif that the current spots were optimized from a solid color over thousands (or more) successive generations is also probably incorrect.

In nature it is observed that there are many, many, complex behaviors that derive from trivially simple rules and coding schemes. A book that explains this visually, and uses the analogy of trivial computer programs (specifically, 2-color nearest-neighor cellular automata rules) is called "A New Kind of Science", and was written by a guy named Wolfram, (who invented the software "Mathmatica", amongst other things).

Anyway, the point here is
-- single/simple mutations tend to have BIG impacts in the immediate child organism
-- mutation of an organism and resultant changes in its offspring is a done deal. Nobody sane argues that it doesn't happen. Ask a farmer for petes sake.
-- nobody has demosntrated life creating itself out of non-life in any experiment, no matter how contrived. We can re-create what we think the initial conditions for the formation of star are in a lab (yes, millions of degrees, etc), but thus far we haven't been able to come up with any set of conditions whereby non-life turns into life..

Theologically, the specifics of how God set the rules, put the objects in the universe, etc, is unimportant to me. I trust what science seems to tell me, and when it doesn't tell me, I don't try and force it to.

It's also important never to settle for a "God of the gaps" -- a faith that only explains what science doesn't (yet), because invariably the importance of a "God of the gaps" will diminish with scientific progress. I.e. as we're able to better scientifically explain age-old questions, the importance of God necessarily diminishes if we were defining him as "the answer to things we can't explain".

Overshadowing all of this is what's coming over the weekend. Lots of us will probably be on the road, so stay safe.

Why are we travelling again?

There's rock solid historical proof that Jesus was real, walked the Earth, and there is an entire book of eye-witnesss accounts of all of the amazing work he did in his short life. Lot's of people disagree on when exactly his birth happened, but in this country, we've agreed to celebrate it on Dec 25th.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

[DaveH]

Evolution as you describe it, seems to make sense until you actually look at it in detail. Read little about the bombadier beetle that I mentioned a few pages back. It's body creates a couple of chemicals and an inhibitor that keeps the chemicals from exploding. When they are threatened the beetle injects this stuff in a special tube that's built into it's body. Then the beetle injects an catalyst and when that happens the chemicals explode out of the tube at over 200F.

If you follow evolution, then I guess that over the course of hundreds of thousands of generations of beetles (that over time I guess had developed this fireproof tube), these beetles were creating in their bodies these chemicals and were mixing them in evolutionary experiments and blowing themselves up until they happened to get it right?

Does anyone believe that this could possibly happen?

:icon_rabbit:

Here is a good description of how it works.

http://www.life-of-science.net/bio--and-nanotechnology/feature/exploding-beetles-suggest-a-new-pressure-relief-valve-and-fluid-discharge-system.html

[Guest]

Right, I agree with you there Dave, in that that particular beetle was designed like that by God. I still think that evolution (if what I described is in fact evolution, or just a matter of gene/climate adaptation) exists to some degree. Again, I don't think the bible states that animals/plants/etc... were created and would never change, I think that the change may be part of the grand design.

[kylush]

It is important to look at the differences between micro and macro evolution.

Micro evolution such as small adaptations, different breeds of dogs and animals being developed by breeding. People building up antibodies, bacteria becoming resilient to antibiotics, we know this stuff happens.

Macro evolution, such as one species changing into a completly different species is a completely different thing, and using one to try and prove the other, is a huge leap with lots of illogical flaws...

[kylush]

Another thing, regarding life originating out of a some organic soup. The chances of all the building blocks of proteins, and a whole cell coming together are so slim that they are almost impossibe, but even if it was possible, think of this... All the building amino acids come together to form a protein, what do you have? A dead protein. Then they somehow form all the buidling blocks of a cell, what do you have? A bunch of dead parts. Then by some chance they get arranged into the form of a cell, you still have a dead, lifeless, cell......

You cannot simply take all the individual parts of a cell or any organism and put them together and have a living organism, the same way you can't disect a frog, or take apart any animal, put it back together and have a living animal, even if you were to restore all it's fluids and whatever else.

You can't take the building blocks of a living organism, put them together and have a living organism, life simply doesn't just happen, and can't simply be assembled like that.

[Guest]

Keep in mind, I believe in God. Have no problem professing that publicly on the internet. Having said that, let me play devils advocate here....and I'm not asking anyone to give up their faith/change their faith/etc....just asking the what ifs:

The argument is that God is eternal...always has existed, always will exist. Is it not possible that life has always existed and always will as well? Take your religious beliefs out of the thought before you answer, because the obvious answer is "No, only God is capable of that". But what if he wasn't? Is it possible that given enough time, things would adapt/evolve? Might take trillions (or more) of years to happen, but given enough time, with enough needs for various species to change, is it possible that some would evolve out of necessity while others, perhaps just a thousand miles away, would never have the need to change and therefore never would evolve?

My answer is that yes, given enough time in an ever changing world, creatures could evolve into something greater than what they started as (either through very selective breeding, climatic changes, etc...) Does this mean that I think this is how it did happen. I like to look at all sides of an argument before I make a complete decision (usually), and by looking at the evolutionary side of this argument, I feel that it has strengthened my beliefs in God, and answered some of the things that I had questioned. If this means I am going to hell for my beliefs, that is a choice I have to live with I guess.

There are a few things in the bible that concern me and the Christian belief system such as the following:

The third book of the Bible, Leviticus, has some wonderful passages. The Jubilee laws outlined in chapter 25, for example, provide an inspiring vision of liberty and justice for all. The 10th verse of this chapter even supplied the inscription for the Liberty Bell: "proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."

The Jubilee laws and the ideals they embody, unfortunately, are nearly wholly neglected and forgotten. Most of the book of Leviticus is similarly neglected.

Yet some passages live on, their teachings still regarded as unwavering and binding.

One such passage is Lev. 20:13, which says (in the King James Version), > "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to enjoy full civil rights here in America.

The thing is, though, that the book of Leviticus condemns a lot of things as "abominations." The 11th chapter is overflowing with abominations. For example, from verses 10-12:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

The folks over on the religious right cite Leviticus as evidence that homosexuals are an unclean "abomination," yet they have no problem eating at Red Lobster. What gives?

-some of the above was a copy/paste of an article I found years ago, but the arguments are similar to what I would have said.

[DaveH]

tjamz;199817 wrote:
That passage is frequently cited by the spokesmen of the religious right to explain why they're so adamantly opposed to allowing homosexuals to enjoy full civil rights here in America.

Sorry Chuck, I can't let that slide...

Civil Rights: "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S."

The 13th and 14th refer to slavery and citizenship: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see any civil rights that homosexuals are missing out on?

[out there]

perhaps, what we need to do, first, is determine just how much weight the bible is to be given. personally, i feel that the bible is not to be taken seriously, it is so inconsistent and convoluted as to be utter rubbish. at the same time, it spews forth valuable information about us (as people and a people) and is not to be taken lightly.

one big problem i have, is that there are too many people that insist the bible is the actual word of the supreme being, period. the bible is to be used as reference in all situations. isaac asimov made a great observation: that the bible is the best argument for atheism. if we're going to start throwing biblical quotes and expect them to be taken to heart, i think it is necessary that we come to an agreement about where the bible's authority starts and ends. i'm in the camp that says the bible is important; much like what chuck mentioned about slavery: hate it or love it, it was/is a huge part of how people evolve/d. dis/believe, love/hate the new testament (what i'm assuming we all mean), it has been so important in the development of western culture (cosmologically, the entire world) that it cannot be ignored. that being said, i prefer to hold that the bible is inspired by the infinite entity, but, i will not state that it is the alpha and omega of our lives. anything in the bible is open to interpretation, especially when you remember that the bible is already removed at least once from its true form (ie we can only read english, but it was written in ancient greek) and we must take that into consideration.