|
Post by comike14 on Jul 31, 2006 12:14:25 GMT -5
The fallacy I'm seeing in peoples' arguments here is that they assume that God created the universe. And of course, should there need to be a universal Creator, then who created that Creator? This is personifying and quantifying and entity known as "God." That's normal, because that's how our brains understand it.
But let me pose to you this: suppose God isn't a separate entity. Suppose God IS the universe. And suppose the universe IS God. Everything that is. God and the universe are inseparable. And the universe/God needn't have a Creator. The universe/God just is. And when they talk about creating man in his image, what about the image of consciousness? Self-awareness of the universe, so to speak, is mirrored in us. Physically represented, thoughts are electrical storms in the brain. Well, are there not electrical storms that span the entire cosmos? Would it be so far-fetched to assume that the universe thinks?
The problem that arises in religion is the deification and separation of God from ourselves, and ourselves from him and the universe. We aren't really seperate from anything because we are part of what makes up the universe as a whole. God isn't a man-like king on a throne, passing judgement and sending sinners to hell. God just is. He is the Alpha and Omega. What does that mean? Well that means that he is the beginning as it were, and the end as it were. And everything therein and inbetween. Even the bible, when you read it the right way, says that God is simply everything, and that any sense of separation that we feel from him (and/or the universe) is simply illusory. All the logic in the world can't say we aren't all really part of the whole. In fact, logic will dictate that we are indeed inseparable from everything that is. And how can anyone comprehend something objectively from without if he is part of everything from within?
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 31, 2006 12:31:16 GMT -5
If God is the Universe, then why create a seperate name for it? Why not just call it the Universe?
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Jul 31, 2006 12:35:59 GMT -5
I think the term "God" stems from, and is meant to refer to, the conscious aspect, or conscious attribute of the universe. And also, the idea of "God" as a personification is more tangible to our physical way of thinking. Our natural tendency to separate ourselves, or think of ourselves as separate from the universe as a whole led us to interpret "God" as much the same way. When you said "so we created God in our image," I agree with you. But that in no way precludes any fact that there is no "God," or a supreme consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 14, 2006 16:14:11 GMT -5
I think the term "God" stems from, and is meant to refer to, the conscious aspect, or conscious attribute of the universe. And also, the idea of "God" as a personification is more tangible to our physical way of thinking. Our natural tendency to separate ourselves, or think of ourselves as separate from the universe as a whole led us to interpret "God" as much the same way. When you said "so we created God in our image," I agree with you. But that in no way precludes any fact that there is no "God," or a supreme consciousness. Given. However, it in no way proves It's existence either. Once again, we are (every one of us) left only with agnosticism. BTW Comike14, I do like your idea all the same......tis like each of us is a single cell in the sentient being called 'God'. Some of us might be neurons, others are mucosal cells of the divine anal sphincter. Also, the life or death of any single cell is less than meaningless to such an immense entity. So I suppose praying is right out. ? If we become too populous, or worse, we succeed in populating distant stars, might we be interpretted as a cancerous growth? For the sake of science, I have to say that, in truth (as far as we know) there are no 'electrical storms' that span the universe. (except in comic book illustrations ). Radiation however does span the universe, but given its speed and the size of the universe, then God's reaction time is pretty damn slow.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Aug 14, 2006 16:57:33 GMT -5
I think the term "God" stems from, and is meant to refer to, the conscious aspect, or conscious attribute of the universe. And also, the idea of "God" as a personification is more tangible to our physical way of thinking. Our natural tendency to separate ourselves, or think of ourselves as separate from the universe as a whole led us to interpret "God" as much the same way. When you said "so we created God in our image," I agree with you. But that in no way precludes any fact that there is no "God," or a supreme consciousness. Given. However, it in no way proves It's existence either. Once again, we are (every one of us) left only with agnosticism. BTW Comike14, I do like your idea all the same......tis like each of us is a single cell in the sentient being called 'God'. Some of us might be neurons, others are mucosal cells of the divine anal sphincter. Also, the life or death of any single cell is less than meaningless to such an immense entity. So I suppose praying is right out. ? If we become too populous, or worse, we succeed in populating distant stars, might we be interpretted as a cancerous growth? For the sake of science, I have to say that, in truth (as far as we know) there are no 'electrical storms' that span the universe. (except in comic book illustrations ). Radiation however does span the universe, but given its speed and the size of the universe, then God's reaction time is pretty damn slow. I suppose the electrical storm bit refers more to localized areas, such as planetary storms--Earth in particular. Think of all the lightning strikes here every second, and then think about how many there are on Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, etc. I didn't mean to imply one giant storm that encompasses the universe. And I realize that I can't prove God, nor can I prove anything aside from my own conscious awareness. I don't like it when people are so "letter of the law" that they can't alter and shape their beliefs, whether it's pure science, or pure religion. My main goal in saying anything that I say in that regard is to try to get people to think about things in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 14, 2006 21:04:52 GMT -5
And I realize that I can't prove God, nor can I prove anything aside from my own conscious awareness. I don't like it when people are so "letter of the law" that they can't alter and shape their beliefs, whether it's pure science, or pure religion. My main goal in saying anything that I say in that regard is to try to get people to think about things in a different way. Fair enough.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 15, 2006 2:20:07 GMT -5
I think the real question is, does burden of proof lie on Religion or on Athiesm?
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 15, 2006 3:51:15 GMT -5
I think the real question is, does burden of proof lie on Religion or on Athiesm? I'd have to say Atheism. It claims to be the more scientific of the two, and science is supposed to be an objective, proven... thing. Man, I'm tired. *Placeholder for something vaguely interesting*
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 15, 2006 6:02:11 GMT -5
What happened to bigphatty, anyway?
Also, note, I'm not getting involved in the discussion... merely providing a topic.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Aug 15, 2006 11:02:10 GMT -5
I think the real question is, does burden of proof lie on Religion or on Athiesm? I'm not sure either one can prove anything either way. And the burden falls on the context of the situation. If there's a group of "religionist" (God, I hate that word) sitting around talking and an athiest comes in to challenge them, well the Athiest better bring something to back himself up with. And vice-versa. On this forum in particular, it doesn't make much difference. And as I said, neither side can prove anything--all we have is logical philosophical arguement on either side. Which incidentally makes for a much better discussion. Your question though brought to mind the image of God sitting in a witness stand, trying to prove he exists. "A geez, you guys, come on!"
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 15, 2006 13:01:48 GMT -5
I think the real question is, does burden of proof lie on Religion or on Athiesm? I'm not sure either one can prove anything either way. And the burden falls on the context of the situation. If there's a group of "religionist" (God, I hate that word) sitting around talking and an athiest comes in to challenge them, well the Athiest better bring something to back himself up with. And vice-versa. On this forum in particular, it doesn't make much difference. And as I said, neither side can prove anything--all we have is logical philosophical arguement on either side. Which incidentally makes for a much better discussion. Your question though brought to mind the image of God sitting in a witness stand, trying to prove he exists. "A geez, you guys, come on!" Try the term "theist", as opposed to "atheist". Although in verbal conversation a listener may think they just didn't hear the first syllable. P.S. - Or a defense lawyer dressed like a priest, pointing at the empty witness chair yelling "Just look right there ladies and gentlemen of the jury! It's obvious!"
|
|
|
Post by Leviticus on Aug 16, 2006 8:24:23 GMT -5
The fallacy I'm seeing in peoples' arguments here is that they assume that God created the universe. And of course, should there need to be a universal Creator, then who created that Creator? This is personifying and quantifying and entity known as "God." That's normal, because that's how our brains understand it. But let me pose to you this: suppose God isn't a separate entity. Suppose God IS the universe. And suppose the universe IS God. Everything that is. God and the universe are inseparable. And the universe/God needn't have a Creator. The universe/God just is. And when they talk about creating man in his image, what about the image of consciousness? Self-awareness of the universe, so to speak, is mirrored in us. Physically represented, thoughts are electrical storms in the brain. Well, are there not electrical storms that span the entire cosmos? Would it be so far-fetched to assume that the universe thinks? The problem that arises in religion is the deification and separation of God from ourselves, and ourselves from him and the universe. We aren't really seperate from anything because we are part of what makes up the universe as a whole. God isn't a man-like king on a throne, passing judgement and sending sinners to hell. God just is. He is the Alpha and Omega. What does that mean? Well that means that he is the beginning as it were, and the end as it were. And everything therein and inbetween. Even the bible, when you read it the right way, says that God is simply everything, and that any sense of separation that we feel from him (and/or the universe) is simply illusory. All the logic in the world can't say we aren't all really part of the whole. In fact, logic will dictate that we are indeed inseparable from everything that is. And how can anyone comprehend something objectively from without if he is part of everything from within? "Assumptions are a transparent grid through which we view the universe, sometimes deluding ourselves that the grid IS that universe."-Brian Herbert Interesting quote I think. It is the reason why people have differing assumptions of what God is, or is not. Most people need to have faith that there is a higher power. It helps them cope with everything that happens in their lives. It gives them a reason for living and comforts them in their sadness of lost loved ones, who have passed away to a higher plane of existence. They believe that in the afterlife, they will be reunited with their loved ones. This is the main reason I believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 30, 2006 4:13:15 GMT -5
There has to be a god? No, not necessarily - to try and rationalize existence through some all powerful "god" entity is flawed, believe as you will however.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Aug 30, 2006 10:42:06 GMT -5
There has to be a god? No, not necessarily - to try and rationalize existence through some all powerful "god" entity is flawed, believe as you will however. Absolutely. You cannot attempt to explain existence via some creator, but rather, it's much more tangible to exhaust all other possibility in your explanations. To do otherwise relies far too heavily on faith rather than truth.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 30, 2006 11:08:30 GMT -5
There has to be a god? No, not necessarily - to try and rationalize existence through some all powerful "god" entity is flawed, believe as you will however. Absolutely. You cannot attempt to explain existence via some creator, but rather, it's much more tangible to exhaust all other possibility in your explanations. To do otherwise relies far too heavily on faith rather than truth. I disagree. For example, take a rock, any rock. Now, Geology tells us that this rock wasn't always a rock. At some point in time, it had to be created. Now, depending on which Rock you choose, it could have been created by many different processes like compression or cooling magma or lava, but it has no creator. What made the rock a rock is the propertys of the things around it. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that the universe was created by the propertys that it actually possessed. Now you ask, well, then what created those propertys? To that I say random chance. The creation of the universe is like rolling a pair of 10 trillion sided dice, just because we got possiblity #58,472,389 doesn't mean that there aren't trillions of others out there that were equally likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 30, 2006 11:44:25 GMT -5
You know, to say "God did this" is akin to saying we don't know?
And I'd say that random probabilities aren't very useful in predicting the formation of life in the universe, not currently anyway.
Man, don't get me started on the "rock" thing - Comike will fill you in if you're willing to be subjected to my crazed rantings.
|
|