8 of 10
8
Why did God create the Earth and humanity in the first place?
Posted: 19 July 2012 09:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22
Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 08:38 AM
student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him.html

Which god would that be?

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
garythehuman - 19 July 2012 09:12 AM
Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 08:38 AM
student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him.html

Which god would that be?

The God of the bible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 09:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Show us your proof the god of the Bible exists.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 19 July 2012 09:23 AM

Show us your proof the god of the Bible exists.

do you think this is a relevant philosophical or scientific question ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Yes, it is relevantl, because any discussion about what god wants, does or has done is pointless without proof of said god’s existence.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 19 July 2012 10:17 AM

Yes, it is relevantl, because any discussion about what god wants, does or has done is pointless without proof of said god’s existence.

According to Goedels theorem, proofs are irrelevant.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Goedel’s Theorem applies to mathematics. If you have no proof of your god you have nothing to support any of your statements. You consistently refuse to offer anything substantive; you merely evade things you cannot explain and obfuscate discussions with irrelevant posts. You have demonstrated a profound misunderstand of modern philosophy, preferring instead to obstinately regurgitate the writings of Bronze Age shamans. You are not seeking to gain understanding, you just want to spread your ignorance as if it were profound knowledge.

Once again, I challenge you to offer proof of your god. Continuing this discussion is pointless until you provide such proof.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 19 July 2012 11:04 AM

Goedel’s Theorem applies to mathematics. If you have no proof of your god you have nothing to support any of your statements.

i have evidence. Its enough for me.

 

You consistently refuse to offer anything substantive;

what do YOU have to offer ?

 

you merely evade things you cannot explain and obfuscate discussions with irrelevant posts.

You have neither commited to a serious discussion either…....

 

You have demonstrated a profound misunderstand of modern philosophy, preferring instead to obstinately regurgitate the writings of Bronze Age shamans.

It seems you have no idea about the background of the writers of the bible.

 

You are not seeking to gain understanding

Are you ??!! do you not behave as you knew everything ?!!

 

, you just want to spread your ignorance as if it were profound knowledge.

Why do you in that case loose your time , writing me ?

Once again, I challenge you to offer proof of your god. Continuing this discussion is pointless until you provide such proof.

Then don’t continue answer me. I have no proofs to offer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2012 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 11:15 AM

i have evidence. Its enough for me.

...

I have no proofs to offer.

QED.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2012 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2012-07-03

Almost all highly evolved species have senses designed to observe the environment for possible danger or opportunity from other “beings” being present.

Yes! That makes me think of an article I found from an old issue of Skeptical Inquirer on how this mechanism is, as you were hinting, linked to our survival. In fact, the belief in supernatural can be part of the survival mechanism. Any attack on their belief is considered a threat to their worldview (life after death for example) thus any evidence, or even any mention to the contrary, usually will put them on the defensive and discard any evidence or rational argument. …Which is “Why Bad Beliefs Don’t Die” (Eureka! Just remembered the name of the article). It was one of the most interesting articles I had read when I first became interested in science at the time since I had continuously witnessed the resilience of beliefs.

Actually I was too busy in my thoughts that I forgot to put in the actual word that would specify what I was asking. Here is the corrected phrase. Sorry I was going too fast for my own good. Being here is the first time I get to ask these questions to people who’ve been on these topics much longer than I have. Also I have yet to dive into philosophical literature (I’m young, addicted to reading but I’ve only been able to read so much so far smile), so it takes me a while to get them to come out right.

From my post, #93. I put the forgotten word in italic.

Wouldn’t it be fascinating instead that one of our first “boosts” in intellectual capabilities, the first of our thought processes to develop after we branched off in our own evolutionary direction, was to start off by developing the concept of supernatural causality?

If you read everything in this new light, it kind of changes the meaning of my final question in that same paragraph, as it was originally intended. That’s why your reply confused me a bit (but again spot on to what I asked). Although, now that I think about it, in the end, your answer still could make sense. It’s just that I figured since the origin of the storm could not be produced by any being the chimp knew of already, that a being “throwing” hundreds of objects everywhere would be too complex for him to imagine, in the end making a supernatural cause too overwhelming for his imagination to produce, that it might have originated only from ourselves once our minds had become more complex. But maybe chimps can think of such things?

We have refined thinking in abstract terms very highly.

I guess the bad part is that, as interesting as these ideas may be, we have also refined accepting abstract terms and putting a big “Credible” stamp on some them.

If this also god, god is dual in nature and has attained a Supernatural “zero state perfection”.

I will have to learn more about this Supernatural “zero state perfection”. I’m not familiar with it. Do you mean that it explains both everything and nothing at the same time? O.o


Student:

Aaah, I understand what you mean now. But I still see it the same way. If you replace the word confidence in this phrase with the word faith, don’t you think it is more accurate? Allow me to modify your own phrase smile

Assuming facts objectively contradict the fiction, seems to take faith to ignore the facts while proclaiming contrary claims.

If it takes confidence to HAVE faith, then it seems to me that the person already doubts such things anyways and should stop trying so hard. Might have to ask a religious person on that one.

 Signature 

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 July 2012 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

Imaginos:

You thought it takes faith to ignore the facts while proclaiming contrary claims. Sounds as good as “confidence” needed.

I have fallen behind. Thank you all for your responses in this and the other CFI blog topics.

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3333
Joined  2011-11-04
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 12:41 PM
TimB - 10 July 2012 10:47 AM

The question “why” pre-supposes a causal action intended for an effect.  Cause and effect are temporal, thus anything preceding the existence of space-time, could not have a cause/effect.  (In fact, I don’t understand how the Big Bang, itself, could have happened.)  Anyway, it seems to me that if there is something that loosely fits the definition of what we refer to as god, then I think that it’s “reason” for creating humanity would have to have occurred after the Big Bang. 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t374-is-timeless-divine-action-coherent

The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/timeless.htm

God’s bringing about the universe is the total and direct dependence of the contingent universe on the divine will. Such a relation of dependence does not require that God be located in time. Thus, divine timeless action is not incoherent.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

Sorry, I’ve been out of the loop for a while. 

The question “why” not only presupposes causality, but also, intention.  You declare that causality and effect are often, if not always simultaneous.  However, to be coherent, re: “god” having a reason for creating the universe, you must also declare that the intention was also simultaneous.  I have no doubt that you can do so to justify your faith, but to me it is just another unfounded declaration.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2012 07:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2012-07-04

TimB:

You mention time, God, and Creator. Is it too simplistic (or inaccurate) to think of God as creator of time?

student

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2012 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1777
Joined  2007-10-22
Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 09:21 AM
garythehuman - 19 July 2012 09:12 AM
Adonai888 - 19 July 2012 08:38 AM
student - 18 July 2012 08:14 PM

DarronS:

You said you find it incredible to believe a being who could create this vast universe would be so insecure to need our praise.

God doesn’t NEED our praise. But when we praise him, that is for our own good.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/why-would-god-want-us-to-praise-him.html

Which god would that be?

The God of the bible.

Which of the gods in the bible are you refering to.  There are more than one listed.

More to the point I really don’t care much about any of the god traditions used by “prophets” (propagandists) of the tribes invading Canaan somewhere around 2,500 to 3,000 years ago.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2012 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
student - 03 August 2012 07:53 AM

TimB:

You mention time, God, and Creator. Is it too simplistic (or inaccurate) to think of God as creator of time?

student

If I may presume, (tx Tim),

Time is not present independent of spatial dimensions. That is why the term “spacetime”. IMO, time is created as a result from the limitations (and potentials) inherent in the way the universe works.

But IMO, the “known” part of the universe seems to work flawlessly without a directing sentience. It’s all mathematical.

After all is said and done, the only case a theist can make is a “condition” (by any other name) present prior to creation.
Thus, God is an abstraction (interpretation) of the “unknown”.  By Ockham’s razor, there is no need for all the baggage which accompany the concepts of scriptural gods.
I believe that perhaps in the future there may well be an elegant scientific equation, which explains it all with such clarity that many will say “why did I not see it?”  Something on the order of E = Mc^2, which changed everything.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 10
8