Jump to content

God botherers, I want your opinions.


346 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Okay, Another go at this. I think that there are more than a few ghosts-in-the-machine in this.

 

 

<Free will (the ability to determine one's choices)...>

 

Free will IS determining choice. A choice can be a created universe. An array of infinate possibilities is the only possibility.

 

<...requires a determined universe, and any determined universe can be created by a determined Creator.>

 

Cause and effect is only a selective observation.

 

<What we know today that wasn't clear even 50 years ago, is that...>

 

There is now proof of God?

 

<..determinism actually grounds unpredictablity.>

 

God is now chaos? Go figure. But cowflungdung to you anyway. Unpredictability is only a set of conditions falling outside so said determinante ones. The flaw would be to think that there should be none.

 

<Even very simple non-linear models can result in chaotic behavior (i.e. where small errors in initial condition measurement result in vastly different outcomes.)

 

Thank you. If only organized religion would see and understand this.

 

 

<Indeterminism boils down to a random, capricious, unknowable Fate ruling supreme.>

 

Indeterminism has nothing to do with the state of externalities , but rather is more about the conditions of the observation. If an act is to observe change then change is observed; it does not follow that the inability to form a conclusion satisfying a predetermined set of conditions (even one of fate) should necessitate divinity by virture of not being able to form that conclusion.

 

<Choices of will must not be detrmined by anything within or outside the individual. >

 

Will is not chosen. One is not lost then found.

 

<It may be that many have this Fate as their God, but we can have no evidence for such a Fate.>

 

Only under such conditions as you would determine God.

 

 

byte the bloody apple!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<I think our will is completely constrained (determined) by who we are and able to respond to what we observe.>

 

Who we are is determined by externalities in concert with our will. Cause and effect are observations and will and action are not systemic in this way.

 

<I bring up the universe (space-time, energy-matter, creation) because we are natural.>

 

Creation is not part of it in that way. It is more reasonable to suggest that it is a property of mind.

 

We cannot even be sure that there are things beyond the universe.

 

<It seems impossible to get around recognition of either an ultimate determinism or indeterminism.>

 

Because your looking for a knowable model - one that is chaotically predictable.

 

<Personally, I think the former is much preferable.>

 

Determinism here suggesting a narrative of infinite symmetry; what is wrong with that thought?

 

<If even one small thing/event is indeterminate one must question all reality/knowledge.>

 

It does not follow that if thing is determined then it should not be questioned. Such propositions are only the properties of observation.

 

Like Time – a description of change, an observed property of the universe, not a thing in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that individuals whom indentify attractions to religion, or drugs do so because of their inherent will.

Their will has nothing to do with it. Biologist have found a direct link between a defective gene known as vmat2 in some peoples DNA, and the need to be in a religion.

 

They first found this direct link while conducting a study on addiction for the National Cancer Institute. Studies have shown an over lap between the neural activity of believing in a religion and of things like sexual pleasure. There are genes associated with neurotransmitters called monoamines. The monoamines, which include serotonin and dopamine, help regulate mood. Much like LSD they help reward your brain when certain activities or thoughts are performed, for example; sex. It's monoamines that are carefully manipulated by Prozac and other antidepressants. It's also monoamines that are associated with ecstasy, LSD, peyote and other mind-altering drugs—some of which have long been used in religious rituals. Quite literally what this means is that there are people with this defective gene, that are predisposed to be attracted to religion, just the same as some people are predisposed to be attracted to taking drugs. In both case, whether it's the person taking drugs, or the person participating in a religion, their mind releases special chemicals which 'reward' the person and gives them a pleasurable feeling.

 

Also in both cases the regulating of these mind released chemicals are addictive. Shown below is a mind scan of the same person. On the left side they were asked to think about their religion. On the right side they were relaxing. The part of the brain that sets up a 'reward' system is located in the lower right hand side. You'll notice acute activity in that region when they are thinking about their religion. This is the same area of the brain that becomes active when people are having sex, or taking an addictive drug. Only people with the defective gene 'light up' this area of the brain and receive the pleasurable chemical cocktail when they think about religion. The Biologist also cross checked their findings in many other ways, for example giving them a temperament and character inventory test, all of which confirmed their findings (side note; it needs to be clearified that believing there is a God, and needing to belong to a religion are two different things). When you think about it there are many other parallels between people with addictive traits (sex or drug addicts) and people who believe in a religion. For example; they both become very defensive when you try to take their addiction away from them, and they both talk themselves into believing that they 'need' what they are addicted to.

 

 

relgbrnscans.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<...requires a determined universe, and any determined universe can be created by a determined Creator.>

 

Cause and effect is only a selective observation.

Yes, I am talking internal beliefs. One can believe either way, but what do we believe? I once held an incompatibilistic understanding of human freedom, but believed in determinism elsewhere. And as far as we can observe there is determinism. Now some say that we must think of some things as operating as mere probablities. I have no problems with the models and equations, but the predictability of a model cannot prove its accuracy.

 

Chaos theory accruately predicts the limits of our ability to observe. There is no hole for indetermism or any other god of the gaps.

 

God is now chaos? Go figure. But cowflungdung to you anyway. Unpredictability is only a set of conditions falling outside so said determinante ones. The flaw would be to think that there should be none.

Why would God be chaos? My only point is that the fact of chaos draws into serious doubt any belief in indeterminism. It is pretty big leap from that to deism. Just because period three appears after chaos in bifurcation diagrams, doesn't argue for the Trinity.  :(

 

I think you might be misunderstanding upredictability. It is the exponential growth of error in observation that causes the inability to predict. An actual indeterminicy, no matter how small, in actual initial conditions would obliterate the structure of chaotic attractors. Yet chaotic attractors are observed to exist. Thus the indeterminate probablistic model must not reflect reality--however useful it might be due the real limitations on our accuracy of observation. 

 

Chaos is as much Creation as anything else. We understand much about its generation, so regarding it as your god would be pretty strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to answer your question, people can think of God in many different ways. They can think that God stays mostly out of our lives and just helps every once in a while (reinforces free will), or they can think that God controls everything (no free will).

Neither is very satisfying. God is the source of life. I can't see either of your options recognizing that. The fact that we exists, live--have the ability to make decisions at all is real good. And the existence of good is an even bigger "problem" than the existence of evil.

 

If I write a program that learns, grows, and reproduces. How can I make it free? Is it more free if it does something I don't want? Is it more free if it does exactly what I want? Is it more free if it kills me and controls everything? Is it more free if it thinks it expresses itself more--even if it doesn't?

 

God and free will:

On God's influence on our decisions: God does not dictate our lives. He gives us the freedom to choose to do whatever we want. As such, there is no such thing as "fate" or "pre-destiny".

This is a pretty good summary, but the problem is that almost all of the terms you used can mean very different things. I don't see any incompatibility with God choosing us to make the choices we do make. Freedom is determined--both by ourselves and by him. And there should be no problem understaning that God's own choices are themselves determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me this, I understand why you may not believe in religion, but if there is no higher being, how then does everything work out the way it does?

 

1. Cell Respiration

2. Photo Synthesis

3. Cell Reproduction

4. Reproduction

5. The sun, moon, and stars

 

If the big bang created all of this, there would be know chance of all of this working out in the perfect way it does. There would be maybe 1 cell, and it wouldn't ever be able to reproduce, because the way it was made, it wouldn't be allowed to. Just think about it, the odds are 1:infinity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me this, I understand why you may not believe in religion, but if there is no higher being, how then does everything work out the way it does?

 

Just think about it, the odds are 1:infinity

Even though I believe in God, I disagree with your argument. The math works for all the things you mention to just be. The real point is why anything is at all. Even if you doubt everything, what does it mean doubt? As someone has said eternity has been placed inside us. I don't see perfection, but I do see good. And goodness must be troubling for anyone who doesn't want to believe in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, if God makes us do all the things we do, that would mean God makes us sin, and that's just plain wrong.

Why cannot God choose to make creatures who he knows will freely choose to sin?

 

Otherwise your god would be surprised by sin, and I can't see that he can do anything about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if God makes us do all the things we do, that would mean God makes us sin

Sin is a man made concept. There is no proof what-so-ever that God has a 'sin' category :P That would be reducing God to our way of thinking. Suggesting that God believes in 'sin' is the same as saying that a human can read Gods 'mind'. First of all there is no evidence that God has, or even needs a 'mind' like a human would, and secondly, even if God had a mind - it would be preposterous for any human to assume that they can read it. Sin is no more, and no less than something invented by man to instill fear and exercise control over others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said God doesn't make us do anything, especially sin. He gives us the free will to choose to do whatever we want.

We cannot do whatever, even if we want to, and how often do we find, when we choose what we think we want, we end up not wanting it. I accept that our free choices are also freely chosen by God. Many who claim freedom are the least free in their choices. God has chosen people to exist who make stupid choices according to their wills, choices that are not best for themselves. He allows them bondage to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I write a program that learns, grows, and reproduces. How can I make it free? Is it more free if it does something I don't want? Is it more free if it does exactly what I want? Is it more free if it kills me and controls everything? Is it more free if it thinks it expresses itself more--even if it doesn't?

 

This subject has been dealt with countless times by Science Fiction (a few examples, I, Robot by Asimov, Data and the Holographic Doctor from Star Trek...)

The only logical conclusion is that, given the necessary technology, a "free" (free thinking and acting) program can indeed be created.

 

Sin is a man made concept. There is no proof what-so-ever that God has a 'sin' category :) That would be reducing God to our way of thinking. Suggesting that God believes in 'sin' is the same as saying that a human can read Gods 'mind'. First of all there is no evidence that God has, or even needs a 'mind' like a human would, and secondly, even if God had a mind - it would be preposterous for any human to assume that they can read it. Sin is no more, and no less than something invented by man to instill fear and exercise control over others.

 

Exactly. Moreover, "evil" falls into the same category (that is, "evil" is a man-made concept).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all there is no evidence that God has, or even needs a 'mind' like a human would, and secondly, even if God had a mind - it would be preposterous for any human to assume that they can read it.

If we take omnipresence and general relativity to be true, we can have some idea of how God might act. It is even interesting to think about how our mind operates given general relativity. People tend to think we act in the present, but really we can only act in the future based upon some response of the past, and most of space-time lies in elsewhere/elsewhen that is forever beyond our reach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of god's existence, it does not really matter whether people have free will or not, what matters the most, the very very most is that we THINK we have free will. This allows us to think that things aren't out of our control, that we have a say in things that happen, etc. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant.

 

The implications of thinking that we DON'T have free will are troubling to say the least. It means that people can feel like things are beyond their control, that they cant change things, that they cant make this world a better place, when the reality is that these things are not beyond peoples' control. If enough people stand up, it makes a difference, telling people that they have no free will and having them believe it ruins this collective action. And whether we like it or not, collective action is what being a human being is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of god's existence.... It means that people can feel like things are beyond their control, that they cant change things, that they cant make this world a better place, when the reality is that these things are not beyond peoples' control.

I think a good religion must have a better world as its goal. How do you define better without God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Moreover, "evil" falls into the same category (that is, "evil" is a man-made concept).

That's exactly correct! Not only that but good would not exist if it weren't for evil, as you need to have both to have balance. Plus since God created 'everything' then that must mean that he created what we call 'evil' as well. It is not logical to assume that then God would go against what he created, being what we call good or evil. A perfect example of this would be Blackholes. For the longest time people assumed that they were bad and all they do is gobble everything up and destroy things. However we now know that Blackholes are extremely important, in fact we literally would not exist without them. If it weren't for Blackholes there would be no planets/solar system. Everything known to man has a purpose, regardless of what 'label' mankind may put on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't. God is sort of the embodiment of all that is good. God is always there, whether people believe in him or not. God did not create evil. Similar to how "cold" is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.

 

Sorry, but yours is a childish, "Christian" view of God. It is a god like "Superman", it is a human being with super powers.

A credible God must be very different and beyond our comprehension:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Brahman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will means that your will to choose how to live your life is just that, free. No restrictions, no predestiny. I cannot emphasize this enough, just because God knows you will take Path A instead of Path B, doesn't mean you CAN'T take Path B. If you disagree, think about it this way: What's stopping you from taking Path B? Absolutely nothing. Since your will is free, you have a choice, and the outcome is not decided until you actually DO something. You can ponder doing something for all eternity, but nothing will change until you actually do it. God is omniscient, he knows you better than you know yourself, and thus knows the outcome of all your decisions with absolute certainty.

 

I completely agree. God doesn't know which choices you will make. God does know however, every combination of choices, and the outcome of every single combination of choices possible.

 

Sin is a man made concept. There is no proof what-so-ever that God has a 'sin' category wink_anim.gif That would be reducing God to our way of thinking. Suggesting that God believes in 'sin' is the same as saying that a human can read Gods 'mind'. First of all there is no evidence that God has, or even needs a 'mind' like a human would, and secondly, even if God had a mind - it would be preposterous for any human to assume that they can read it. Sin is no more, and no less than something invented by man to instill fear and exercise control over others.

 

Please explain what you mean by this, do you believe that sin doesn't exist, and everything is okay, and there is no hell?

 

I was going to make a point based on this, but instead, I changed what I was going to say. Sin, I believe is not believing. Jesus says this:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prosephesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ;I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!'"

-Matthew 7:21-23

 

So, to go to Hell, you do not have to not sin, you have to not believe.

 

Back to the free will thing. If someone came to me, and asked me if I could see if I am going to Heaven or Hell, and it was the correct answer, I would say no, here's why: The answer would be Hell no matter what, here's why:

 

If the answer was Heaven, I knew that I would be going to Heaven, so why would I care about life any more? I would rob a bank, and do stupid things like that, because I wouldn't worry about being punished for all eternity, therefore, the answer would have been changed to Hell because those things don't honor God. If the answer was Hell, that answer is for sure, and I would do the same thing, because I know that it can't change.

 

It is sort of a paradox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but yours is a childish, "Christian" view of God. It is a god like "Superman", it is a human being with super powers.

A credible God must be very different and beyond our comprehension:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Brahman

 

Sounds to me like you have no understanding of the concept of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like you have no understanding of the concept of God.

 

It remains to be seen who has no understanding.

If you mean that my idea of God is different than yours, then you are probably right.

I started studying God from different points of view (other than the Christian one, that is it), probably much before you were born. But as Maxintosh rightly says, nobody has an understanding of the concept of God.

At least read that article before uttering any further nonsense.

Or is the article too difficult for your to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good religion must have a better world as its goal. How do you define better without God?

 

This is an easy answer, it can be answered with some emotion and some simple logic. You can define better anything you want. The earth is polluted, if we reduce that pollution and maybe even turn it around, we've made that aspect of the earth a better place.

 

If there is 30% of the population in poverty and you bring that down to 10% (assuming there are no horrible catches) then youve made that aspect of the world a better place.

 

If you develop an invention that helps mankind/animals/whatever or has made something good more efficient, then you've made the world a better place in those aspects.

 

People always try to complicate things by trying to define what "good" is. But most of us already know and get the feel for what good is, either with the help of god, or even if were alone in our own conscience. We many times act selfishly, but that doesn't we don't understand what good is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Christian" view of God. It is a god like "Superman", it is a human being with super powers.A credible God must be very different and beyond our comprehension

You hit the nail on the head, but some people simply don't have good comprehension and so they have to imagine God as being something easy to imagine or something that's familiar. They think that God is some sort of a cosmic santa claus :D

 

Please explain what you mean by this, do you believe that sin doesn't exist, and everything is okay, and there is no hell?

Well, those are several totally different questions so I'll address them separately :)

 

Sin is a man made concept. It didn't exist before someone came along and invented it. Do you seriously think that God would punish someone like a caveman and send him to "hell" just because the "bible" wasn't invented yet? ;) Religions come from myths, and myths are largely based on stories of superstition. Some religions stole ideas from other religions. For example; the christian sign of the cross, the story of the virgin Mary and the idea of a 'holy ghost' all were taken directly from the Buddhist religion. Regarding 'hell'; it is widely known among independent religious scholars that 'hell' does not exist. I won't write a thesis on it here but to summarize an outline, it was first brought into the publics consciousness when the book "The Divine Comedy" was written around 1308. At first the Pope was against the story that the book told, but when he saw how it scared people into going to church he then decided that the story about hell was good and embraced it (with a few changes of course). Back then one of the most sacred things for a Jewish person was how they were buried. The church decided that when a Jewish criminal was killed, that his body would be thrown on top of a pile of trash residing outside of the city and bured along with it. This was one of the most terrifying things in those days and it did cut down on crime. Historically this happened in the Valley of Hinnom which was outside the walls of Jerusalem. For a time it was the site of idolatrous worship including child sacrifice. In the first century the Valley of Hinnom was being used as the incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown into the valley to be consumed in the fires, to which things like sulfur and/or brimstone was added to assist with the burning. Also the bodies of executed criminals mentioned earlier, who were considered undeserving of a proper burial in a memorial tomb, were thrown into the Valley of Hinnom and left to burn. In fact it was so effective that the Pope combined both, along with a Greek translation which wasn't changed into our modern day version until another Pope read the story "Paradise Lost" by Milton. The rest, as they say, is history :)

 

 

Jesus says this

Which 'version' of 'jesus' are you referring to? There have been at least 4-5 different ones dating back to before the Egyptians. Mithra and Horus we two of many. In fact, when christianity first started Pope Leo X, privileged to the truth because, well... he was afterall the pope, made this statement, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" Anyone who has studied about how the culture was back then knows that it was very common in those days to replicate stories, except for one or two changes like the name of the key figures. There are many other similarities, but does an open-minded person really need any more to understand where the story of Jesus most likely originated from? :P

 

Sounds to me like you have no understanding of the concept of God.

No one does ;) It would be arrogant of a person to assume that they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hit the nail on the head, but some people simply don't have good comprehension and so they have to imagine God as being something easy to imagine or something that's familiar. They think that God is some sort of a cosmic santa claus :D

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who has studied about how the culture was back then knows that it was very common in those days to replicate stories, except for one or two changes like the name of the key figures. There are many other similarities, but does an open-minded person really need any more to understand where the story of Jesus most likely originated from?

Who is denying that there are many similarities in ancient middle eastern stories? The Hebrew's scriptures really don't claim to be unique, in fact they mention many peripheral cultures who seem to have a better understanding of God and history than their nation. It does seem like there was a big movement during second temple Judaism to write it all down, and the result evidences some extensive research being involved. As far as the gospels and epistles we have plenty of pretty early copies of those. The more creative things about Jesus were considerably latter and not generally accepted. It seems like you are making mountains out of mole hills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...