2 of 5
2
You are proof that god exist
Posted: 10 October 2007 10:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Vanessa, the History of god is a strong argument against your case. I am not trying to be mean to you so please don’t take offense. I don’t have kids so I don’t really know what I would do. But I don’t understand why parents when faced with difficult questions from kids resort first to quick lies that only cause more difficulty later. In your case why not just say the apparent truth: god is an idea invented by humans to give them comfort in times of fear and uncertainty. It is an imaginary friend of unimaginable powers. Kind of like superman.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2007 11:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7595
Joined  2007-03-02
vanessa - 10 October 2007 08:07 PM

My six year old asked me what God is the other day and I found myself saying it is the goodness and kindness in people.  I really have no idea where that came from, but it sounded good at the time and it stopped his incessant questioning for the moment.  It’s all in how you interpret the word “God,” I guess.

Vanessa

Just a thought, Vanessa, but would it not be better to tell your child that God is a human concept.  After all, if you look at the history of God, as cgallaga suggested, you may find that is not far from the actual truth.  To put it simply, and no insult intended, it is a primitive concept to explain what they could not explain and many people have not let go of that idea and have turned it into an invisible parental figure.  ie “What is the origin of the universe?”  “I don’t know, God did it.”  If one cannot explain something, they go with the old standby “God did it”, which is just a cop out when you really think about it.  OK granted there are somethings I can’t argue with the religious about, but the thing is, science gives us more answers then the simple phrase, “God did it”.

The other thing that can put light on God being a human concept is how many different ideas are there concerning a deity?  Volcano gods (Moses’s god was in fact a volcano god), sun gods, moon gods, Allah, Yahweh, El Shaddi, El Adoni, El this and that (all different gods mind you), Greek gods, Norse gods, Roman gods, and the list goes on and on and on, not to mention individual ideas.  Then ask yourself, who created these gods and just how much do they really differ?  Then think of this one:  Many religions and myths have the “I am"s.  If you were to study the Bhagavad-Gita, you come across many I am’s and the most profound, IMO, is that Krishna says, “I am the beginning, middle, and end” and then you find out that Krishna is Vishnu incarnate!  (Christ is God incarnate).  Not to mention all the virgin birth God/man stories and crucified gods stories and combinations there of.  ALL writen by humans.  I could virtually tell Krishna (at least sections of it) or any other similar story in a manner that you would not be able to tell if I were talking about Christ or another man/god.  In fact, many of the stories in the NT and OT for that matter are midrashes.

So the truth is, God IS a human concept and so is religion for that matter.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 02:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  105
Joined  2007-10-09

Gah, hearing things like “You are the proof of creationism” enrages me just as much as someone telling me to ask “God” for forgiveness!  (Hah, I can forgive myself.  If you can’t then that is your problem!)  I would have told the guy that I do not appreciate him, or her (forgot the gender if one was mentioned) inserting me into their fairy tale without my consent.

An issue I was actually about to ask about before I found this thread is, what is an acceptable use of this god word that we have around today?  “God is the best in you,” and the like are very common phrases that I’ve heard from non-christian-armchair-theologians, if you know what I mean.  I’ve used the word god in those kind of contexts before, but quite recently in fact I became very against doing so.  The reason why is that bringing god into the picture to exemplify your higher self splits you into this false “higher/lower” image when really every side of you is you. 

Vanessa, I am the furthest thing from a mother, but I still worry about kids learning about the concept of god.  It’s so ingrained in our culture that they are going to come in contact with the word sooner or later, but it is such a strange concept that I worry about them learning it so young.  If my kid someday asks me about god (my future kid) I hope that it would be safe to tell him or her that they don’t have to worry about god yet…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
godblessgeorgecarlin - 11 October 2007 02:55 AM

An issue I was actually about to ask about before I found this thread is, what is an acceptable use of this god word that we have around today?  “God is the best in you,” and the like are very common phrases that I’ve heard from non-christian-armchair-theologians, if you know what I mean.  I’ve used the word god in those kind of contexts before, but quite recently in fact I became very against doing so.  The reason why is that bringing god into the picture to exemplify your higher self splits you into this false “higher/lower” image when really every side of you is you. 

My five year old son keeps saying, “Oh my god!” He must have learned it from his friends or classmates. I always correct him by telling him if he is inclined to say this, then he should say, “Oh my goodness” or just “oh my.” Anything without the word “god” until he has a solid understanding of what “god” is or is not. I guess the point would be that you wouldn’t want to speak of something unless you know what the words mean that you are using. That is unless ofcourse you are inquiring on the words meaning.

godblessgeorgecarlin - 11 October 2007 02:55 AM

Vanessa, I am the furthest thing from a mother, but I still worry about kids learning about the concept of god.  It’s so ingrained in our culture that they are going to come in contact with the word sooner or later, but it is such a strange concept that I worry about them learning it so young.  If my kid someday asks me about god (my future kid) I hope that it would be safe to tell him or her that they don’t have to worry about god yet…

“Don’t worry about god yet?” The fact that they are asking you about god means they are already becoming exposed to the concept. If you don’t teach your children what god is and is not, then somebody else will. Why avoid it, just tell them what you truly feel that god is or is not.  Tell it straight and break down for them in a language that they can understand.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 10:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14
morgantj - 11 October 2007 10:03 AM

My five year old son keeps saying, “Oh my god!” He must have learned it from his friends or classmates. I always correct him by telling him if he is inclined to say this, then he should say, “Oh my goodness” or just “oh my.” Anything without the word “god” until he has a solid understanding of what “god” is or is not. I guess the point would be that you wouldn’t want to speak of something unless you know what the words mean that you are using. That is unless ofcourse you are inquiring on the words meaning.

Wow. I wouldn’t have expected that tack from a non-religious person. It’s usually the religious people who argue against “taking the lord’s name in vain”. This is something that persists to this day from a long-lost past in which speaking the name of God or the Devil had a magical, incantatory power to bring them into being.

Since God doesn’t exist, why not just use the term as you like? It’s like talking about Superman or Bugs Bunny, only with a lot more cultural baggage.

... by Zeus!

LOL

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
misfit of joy - 10 October 2007 05:24 PM

yes it can be very hard to debate or argue philosophical points with many creationist.  ” you are proof that god exists”. Its totally flawed, how do they know its proving there god and not Zeus, Rah or any number of deity’s that supposedly had relations with humans.  And it does not prove that god had anything to do with it.  There is no “made buy god” tag on anyone I’ve seen. Its anther wild idea that sounds endearing but is like saying lightening is proof of Zeus, cause Zeus makes lightning.

What if someone says the universe is proof God exists.

What if they argue we need an explanation for the existence of the universe and what ever that unknown explanation is, that is God?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
dougsmith - 11 October 2007 10:26 AM
morgantj - 11 October 2007 10:03 AM

My five year old son keeps saying, “Oh my god!” He must have learned it from his friends or classmates. I always correct him by telling him if he is inclined to say this, then he should say, “Oh my goodness” or just “oh my.” Anything without the word “god” until he has a solid understanding of what “god” is or is not. I guess the point would be that you wouldn’t want to speak of something unless you know what the words mean that you are using. That is unless ofcourse you are inquiring on the words meaning.

Wow. I wouldn’t have expected that tack from a non-religious person. It’s usually the religious people who argue against “taking the lord’s name in vain”. This is something that persists to this day from a long-lost past in which speaking the name of God or the Devil had a magical, incantatory power to bring them into being.

Since God doesn’t exist, why not just use the term as you like? It’s like talking about Superman or Bugs Bunny, only with a lot more cultural baggage.

... by Zeus!

LOL

Well, what I am concerned about is that if he continues to use the word “god” so often he will be conditioned to it in way that I may not be able to so easily repair. And if this conditioning is also under the belief that God is the creator of the universe and such (possibly through influence of his friends, and classmates) then he may fall in to the religious trap. I can teach him otherwise, but if the enviroment is against me or stronger, then he still has the chance of going towards the “pop culture”

Therefore, I thought by having him remove the word “god” from this sentence would help reduce the chances of him being conditioned to the popular definition of god.

Using god’s name in vain, bah. No concern there.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 10:33 AM
misfit of joy - 10 October 2007 05:24 PM

yes it can be very hard to debate or argue philosophical points with many creationist.  ” you are proof that god exists”. Its totally flawed, how do they know its proving there god and not Zeus, Rah or any number of deity’s that supposedly had relations with humans.  And it does not prove that god had anything to do with it.  There is no “made buy god” tag on anyone I’ve seen. Its anther wild idea that sounds endearing but is like saying lightening is proof of Zeus, cause Zeus makes lightning.

What if someone says the universe is proof God exists.

What if they argue we need an explanation for the existence of the universe and what ever that unknown explanation is, that is God?

Stephen

Wouldn’t we use evolution as our explanation? Is there not more evidence of evolution then there is of god?

Off-topic, Is there a reason for non-believers of god to capitalize the word god? It seems that some still do.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
dougsmith - 11 October 2007 10:26 AM

Since God doesn’t exist, why not just use the term as you like? It’s like talking about Superman or Bugs Bunny, only with a lot more cultural baggage.

... by Zeus!

LOL

Technically no one can argue against the phrase “Ohh my God” because it is in reference to the speakers God (my), not others God(s).

 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:00 AM
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 10:33 AM
misfit of joy - 10 October 2007 05:24 PM

yes it can be very hard to debate or argue philosophical points with many creationist.  ” you are proof that god exists”. Its totally flawed, how do they know its proving there god and not Zeus, Rah or any number of deity’s that supposedly had relations with humans.  And it does not prove that god had anything to do with it.  There is no “made buy god” tag on anyone I’ve seen. Its anther wild idea that sounds endearing but is like saying lightening is proof of Zeus, cause Zeus makes lightning.

What if someone says the universe is proof God exists.

What if they argue we need an explanation for the existence of the universe and what ever that unknown explanation is, that is God?

Stephen

Wouldn’t we use evolution as our explanation? Is there not more evidence of evolution then there is of god?

Off-topic, Is there a reason for non-believers of god to capitalize the word god? It seems that some still do.

Evolution is not an explanation for the existence of the universe.

I don’t know about the capital G thing.

I’m not quite a non-believer b.t.w.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 11:12 AM
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:00 AM
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 10:33 AM
misfit of joy - 10 October 2007 05:24 PM

yes it can be very hard to debate or argue philosophical points with many creationist.  ” you are proof that god exists”. Its totally flawed, how do they know its proving there god and not Zeus, Rah or any number of deity’s that supposedly had relations with humans.  And it does not prove that god had anything to do with it.  There is no “made buy god” tag on anyone I’ve seen. Its anther wild idea that sounds endearing but is like saying lightening is proof of Zeus, cause Zeus makes lightning.

What if someone says the universe is proof God exists.

What if they argue we need an explanation for the existence of the universe and what ever that unknown explanation is, that is God?

Stephen

Wouldn’t we use evolution as our explanation? Is there not more evidence of evolution then there is of god?

Off-topic, Is there a reason for non-believers of god to capitalize the word god? It seems that some still do.

Evolution is not an explanation for the existence of the universe.

I don’t know about the capital G thing.

I’m not quite a non-believer b.t.w.

Stephen

Pardon me for my ignorance, but are the “Big Bang” and “evolution” distinct? Or is the “Big Bang” part of evolution?

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:17 AM

Are the “Big Bang” and “evolution” distinct? Or is the “Big Bang” part of evolution?

They are distinct. Evolution starts with the first self-replicating molecule. I don’t want to make it sound like I know much about it. I pick it all up from message boards but I think that is right.

Now the big bang is not an explanation either because we don’t know why the big bang happened, if indeed it did.

If we had an explanation for the big bang, which needed no other explanation, then we could rule God out definately.

The other option (oops no such thing) is “It’s turtles all the way down” Which is where I’d place my bet if push came to shove.

Oh one more likely correct answer. the question why is the universe here simply makes no sense. I read a bit by Arthur C Clarke presenting this view and giving the answer to the question as “where else is it supposed to be?”


Stephen

[ Edited: 11 October 2007 11:32 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15405
Joined  2006-02-14
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:17 AM
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 11:12 AM
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:00 AM
StephenLawrence - 11 October 2007 10:33 AM
misfit of joy - 10 October 2007 05:24 PM

yes it can be very hard to debate or argue philosophical points with many creationist.  ” you are proof that god exists”. Its totally flawed, how do they know its proving there god and not Zeus, Rah or any number of deity’s that supposedly had relations with humans.  And it does not prove that god had anything to do with it.  There is no “made buy god” tag on anyone I’ve seen. Its anther wild idea that sounds endearing but is like saying lightening is proof of Zeus, cause Zeus makes lightning.

What if someone says the universe is proof God exists.

What if they argue we need an explanation for the existence of the universe and what ever that unknown explanation is, that is God?

Stephen

Wouldn’t we use evolution as our explanation? Is there not more evidence of evolution then there is of god?

Off-topic, Is there a reason for non-believers of god to capitalize the word god? It seems that some still do.

Evolution is not an explanation for the existence of the universe.

I don’t know about the capital G thing.

I’m not quite a non-believer b.t.w.

Stephen

Pardon me for my ignorance, but are the “Big Bang” and “evolution” distinct? Or is the “Big Bang” part of evolution?

Totally distinct. The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a process by which living creatures change form over time; its engine is natural selection.

As for the universe being proof that God exists, how so? What’s the proof? How does God’s existence explain anything? If you say, “Well, God created the universe”, who or what then created God? You get the same question all over again. God doesn’t solve anything, it’s just an extra wheel that does no work. Occam’s Razor would say to dispense with it as unnecessary.

As for capitalizing God, for awhile I tried not to, but it felt a bit incorrect: “God” is a proper name, like “Jim” or “Santa Claus” or “Daffy Duck”. It’s used in the context of normal Judaeo/Christian/Muslim monotheism. One can, perhaps, use the word “god” descriptively, like “The Greek gods”. Then perhaps it wouldn’t be capitalized.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 11 October 2007 11:33 AM
morgantj - 11 October 2007 11:17 AM

Pardon me for my ignorance, but are the “Big Bang” and “evolution” distinct? Or is the “Big Bang” part of evolution?

Totally distinct. The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a process by which living creatures change form over time; its engine is natural selection.

Unless we take into consideration the possible existence of the Multiverse. If true, it would involve the Big Bang in some kind of evolution — obviously not Darwin’s evolution driven by natural selection where the favorable traits must be heritable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2007 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  573
Joined  2007-08-21
dougsmith - 11 October 2007 11:33 AM

Totally distinct. The Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a process by which living creatures change form over time; its engine is natural selection.

So evolution is a process that applies only to living creatures?

dougsmith - 11 October 2007 11:33 AM

As for capitalizing God, for awhile I tried not to, but it felt a bit incorrect: “God” is a proper name, like “Jim” or “Santa Claus” or “Daffy Duck”. It’s used in the context of normal Judaeo/Christian/Muslim monotheism. One can, perhaps, use the word “god” descriptively, like “The Greek gods”. Then perhaps it wouldn’t be capitalized.

Yes, I was thinking that. But like you said, it should depend on how you use it. If you are refering the the “God” that the religious believe in, then it would be a proper name. But for those who use “god” with a different assigned value, it may be grammatically correct to not not capitilize it depending on the value assigned to it.

 Signature 

Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2