Serious Discussion: Life

[Lt. Sprizz]

Lots of stuff to cover here.

If I choose to believe in God 'cause it's convenient and I mjight as well, just to cover myself, will that earn me any credit at all when I face judgementday?

I'll admit, my post wasn't quite clear on this. Choosing to believe in God goes farther than sitting on a sofa saying, "He's out there all right." You need to actually be in touch with God, be that in prayer or at church. You eed to know, with undying faith, that he does exist. If everyone was the best possible Christ follower they could be, we could all throw our possesions away and allow God to take us in. But God knows we're not like that. You have to try, and mean try, your very hardest to please God. I'm not claiming to know what the minimum requirements are to get into heaven, but the most absolute is to dedicate your entire life to God, and if you stride to reach that goal, then in my opinion, you're safe.

I did not.  Source?

A college level philosophy class. It was a topic our professor told us about and we discussed.

I guess the biggest problem I have is that you say you're saved, but you also say that you don't believe the Bible is credible.  What makes those parts of the New Testament about being a Christian any more valid than the rest of the book? Or if it really is just as simple as "being saved is better than the alternative," what makes the Bible a better source for getting to the afterlife than anything else? Furthermore, the Bible says that Jesus is the only source of salvation; how did you decide which of your Jesuses to rely on?

I agree that it's good to have a healthy skepticism when it comes to these things, rather than just following blindly.  However, that makes it all the more important to have solid justification when you finally do settle on a particular set of tenets to follow.

The things I'm talking about "the bible not being credible" come from most of the more skeptical things.
Do I think Jonah survived in the belly of a whlae and then was spit out onto dry land?
no.
Do I think there was a great flood that killed everyone but Noah's family, and they repopulated the Earth?
no.
But, things like baptism, communion, and all the traditions that originated around Jesus' time and that I think are viable. Yes there were three other messiahs, all crucifed, all with followers, but I bet if they had been the ones selected and not Jesus, we'd probably still have the same kind of traditions. Jesus didn't come up with the idea of bathing in a river to be saved. It's actually based off a Jewish tradition. Look at John the Baptist.
And I mean, even though I brought up the point of the other messiahs (more to hear what you guys had to say), Jesus did have some excellent credentials. Read Matthew Chapter one (one of the excerpts I consider to be reliable, considering it is dealing with factual evidence). Jesus' family lines match up perfectly with the great Jewish historical figures. I believe that Jesus, even if he wasn't the Son of God (i'm not saying that he is or isn't), is still a great source to get spiritual information from.

As to your last few sentences, you hit the nail on the head. We have to keep asking questions, or else God just becomes another labeled object we think we can grasp. And you have to know what you believe. I'm loving this conversation, some good points are coming up .

Would you not agree that the earliest religion in human culture has the most chance of being correct being the closest to the origin of our species?

Just as the earliest of theories is bound to be the most correct.

No. Earlier religions, like Pyscho mentioned, did not have scriptures or anything. Also, most of the things they believed are proven scientifically today to be completely false. We do not need to dance around a fire beating drums for rain to fall. We don't need to make human sacrifice to keep the sun from buring us alive. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Come up with three examples where it is true, and we'll talk.

Finally, I'm going to side with Kazuki, mainly because he sides with me . "If you expeience something, it has to exist" is a good way to validate the "I exist" statement. If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from? The thoughts have to come from some kind of existing object, no matter what it may be. Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

 I love this topic .

[Smegma]

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

Apparently you don't pick up sarcasm well.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that at all. Come up with three examples where it is true, and we'll talk.

Now you're beginning to grasp it.

Finally, I'm going to side with Kazuki, mainly because he sides with me . "If you expeience something, it has to exist" is a good way to validate the "I exist" statement. If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from? The thoughts have to come from some kind of existing object, no matter what it may be. Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

It doesn't validate it, it has to be presupposed to make the proposition true, but there's no real reason to subscribe to it.

If thinking exists, as said above, then where are these thoughts coming from?

Just because you can't answer a question with a rigorous proof, doesn't mean that you can choose the one that your intuition points you to.

Thoughts can't exist without something thinking them.

I'm not so sure about that.

[Lt. Sprizz]

@Smegma
The earliest theories are usually not correct. Look at the atom. The first to come up with an idea from it believed it was a solid sphere. Then someone said it was more like cookie dough with raisins in it. Then Rutherford said it had electrons floating in pathes around a nucleus. Then someone even smarter came along and said that the electrons were more like a cloud.

Apparently you don't pick up sarcasm well.

My bad, I honestly thought you were serious .

I would like to hear your honest opinions. You replied to all of mine, saying that I can't assume what I assume (a good point), but what are your thoughts? I enjoy hearing all kinds of philosophy. Or are your thoughts simply that we can't assume anything?

[Smegma]

I don't know.

[excruciator]

I don't know.

It is much easier to defeat a theory than to come up with one.

[Smegma]

I don't know.

It is much easier to defeat a theory than to come up with one.

Not necessarily. It depends on the theory.

[LtKillroy]

Yet again they have fallen victim to the Smegma. Will they never learn? I doubt it. Think about it for a little while.

[Kazuki]

But then all that means is that thinking exists.

How so? Maybe I'm just not grasping your argument. If you experience something, it must exist; therefore, everything which can be experienced must exist. Then there are the things which we can rationally conclude exist although we cannot experience them.

If everything I can experience must exist, how is it that only thinking exists? We would then be presuming that we only think that we experience.

Just to be clear, I'm not putting any aggression into this discussion. I respect you greatly and I can't help but feel like you're trying to hint at an idea that I can't wrap my mind around. Either that, or you're just as clueless as the rest of us, yet you try to break down our theories using reason.

[Smegma]

I'm still harping over the whole prove of existence that the cogito tries to prove. That is, experiencing thinking would only show the existence of such and not the self.

[Kazuki]

Ah. No, I'll side with you on that one. In order to prove one's existence, one must be experienced by others. In everyday, practical life, it is true that if you have a conscience, odds are you exist. But when you get into deeper philosophy, that kind of argument won't really fly. I just think that if other objects and people can perceive and interact with you, you must exist.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Epic post coming up.  You've been warned.

One problem that is created is that God is undefinable. God does not suit a universal definition and it is hard to solve a problem if one does not know the source of the problem itself. Not only do philosophers have to try and prove if God exists, but also prove if God is all-powerful. Today, God is usually looked upon as a perfect monotheistic being with supreme power. However, something that is all-powerful and all-knowing would never permit something evil to come to existence. Believers in God could state the idea of free will and that we as humans have the ability to choose good or evil and thus evil exists. Others against the idea of God would suggest that if God was really all-goodness, he would make humans be able to choose good every time. But instead of restricting free will and limiting humans to righteousness, this God of pure goodness would decide to accept the possibilities of evil. Well, a possible resolution that someone would come up with is that what humans perceive as evil is not really evil and that God has a divine plan that will ultimately end in omni benevolence(pure goodness). Again, a counter argument would probably state if God is pure in goodness, then God can not make pure evil. However, if pure goodness can exist, then so can pure evil. And if pure evil did exist, then this pure evil could be as powerful as God and puts God's superiority into question. Even after all that debating, there was virtually no progress in proving if God is all-powerful or if he even exist.

God may be incomprehensible, but that doesn't make him undefinable.  I'm going to stick with a monotheistic God here, though, because that's what the majority of the world believes in these days, and you run into all sorts of problems with lesser gods and demigods and half-god, half-fishes and all sorts of other crazy junk.  I'm also going to consider God an entity, rather than some sort of "life energy," as in "we are all collectively God."

First of all, the very nature of God makes him all-powerful.  God must be the source of every single imaginable thing in the universe: matter, energy, natural laws, time, you name it.  Science, being secular, can't explain how the universe began, but religion guarantees that if you roll back far enough, you'll have some sort of creator.  It follows that since the creator created the universe, he is more powerful than everything in it, and really, that's the only frame of reference that matters.  Who cares if there's something bigger than the thing that created the universe? The latter has full control of us and our destinies, and that's what matters.

Now then, on to morality.  We've already determined that God would be bigger than the universe, so it follows that his will and his essence are the standard by which to compare everything else.  What God IS determines what's good; what God WANTS determines what's sinful (going against that want).  Once you have that standard, you can split actions into good and bad: morality.  Once you have morality, you have choice and free will.  After all, what good is it to have two sides if you're bound to one?  You say that it doesn't make sense for God to create or permit evil; I'd like to counter that by saying it wouldn't make sense for God to only allow good.  If you create something that's a carbon copy of yourself (already an omnipotent being), what's the point? You can't logically extend yourself past what you are, after all.  Therefore, logic dictates that any sentient creations of God must be flawed, or at least have the ability to become flawed.  This greatly increases the importance of free will: Now your creations are following your plan because they WANT to, not because you programmed them to.

Assuming morality does exist, as I've laid out above, then several of your finishing points become irrelevant.  Evil is evil, just as good is good.  However, you go on to imply that good and evil are essentially equals.  That is, there can be a something that is pure evil, just as there is something that is pure good.  To some extent, this is true.  There can be a being that is dedicated to nothing but obstructing God's plans for the universe.  But on the other hand, there is no way that evil can ever be equal to good.  Evil exists only as a misapplication or corruption of good.  It's natural and healthy to feel good when you've done something well.  However, pride is wrong, because you're taking more credit than you should for something.  It's great for a man to love a woman, but lust comes into play when that love occurs in the wrong situation.  Basically, there are benefits to being good, and evil is simply trying to unjustly gain those benefits.  Because evil is simply a corruption of good, and is therefore lesser than it, it follows that the pure evil creature that most would call Satan MUST be weaker than God.

It is in that weakness that your final argument fails.  Satan must be a created being, because we've already concluded that God is the source of any and every thing in the universe, spirits included.  You said that God cannot create evil, and there you are right.  However, by creating a good being with the option to succumb to corruption, the door is open to that being becoming the epitome of that corruption, which is what Christians believe Satan is.  However, as a being created by God with a will that's simply a corruption rather than an equal of good, Satan is ultimately weaker than God and will ultimately fall to God.


(In case anyone is worried about citation, yes, this post is essentially a paraphrasing of the first couple of chapters of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.)

Even if the knots of your claim are unwound, I see no real reason to accept it, but I'm willing to play with the rope.

Great quote.  Sigged.

And in my frenzy to prove God to jerich, I completely skipped over the great discussion between Smegma, Kazuki, and a few others.  I'll respond to that soon.

[Ellimist]

Sorry Gamer_2k4, but god is only for the terribly missinformed

This is only my opinion, and unlike those who believe in god, im not going to force it down your throat

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

As promised, here are my musings on the subject of consciousness as it relates to existence.

Smegma has drawn a clear distinction between thought and self.  Whether or not such a distinction exists may not be knowable (if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, right?), but if it does exist, the concept opens up some interesting possibilities.  But before I delve into those, I need something clarified.  "Thought" is no longer considered the firing of neurons, right? If so, then it would at least prove the existence of the neurons, and if those exist, then everything they interact with must also exist.

Or is it existence that we're arguing? Virtual neurons firing in a virtual world proves nothing.  What, exactly, is existence?

Ah. No, I'll side with you on that one. In order to prove one's existence, one must be experienced by others. In everyday, practical life, it is true that if you have a conscience, odds are you exist. But when you get into deeper philosophy, that kind of argument won't really fly. I just think that if other objects and people can perceive and interact with you, you must exist.

Ah, but here's the catch: Those other objects and people must also exist, or else their perceptions and interactions would be meaningless and prove nothing.  And now we're back to square one of "'I' assumes existence," only now it's "'They' assumes existence."

[Smegma]

My distinction between thought and self may only be implied because the structure of the English language. I'm not completely excluding other options, but I still think the same problems occur.

[jerich]

And in my frenzy to prove God to jerich, I completely skipped over the great discussion between Smegma, Kazuki, and a few others.  I'll respond to that soon.

I never said I didn't believe in God. I do believe in God as I said in that same post. That paragraph was just a hypothetical debate between 2 people as if they were setting up arguments. I wrote whatever I thought of that night before. Of course if I was doing some crazy in depth analysis, your points would have been bought up  and I'm sure other points from the other side would too.

My point was stating that there will never be sufficient enough evidence(at least IMO) to figure out God and the afterlife, so one should be concentrating on the present rather than worrying about death. But kudos to the points you've made.

[echo_trail]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

[Smegma]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

No.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I may be misunderstanding you blokes, but isn't the whole meaning of God that he is beyond and above man and his understanding?

Well, to some extent, yes, but there's a difference between being incomprehensible and being completely obscure.  Consider a silhouette.  You can get an idea of the source object, but that object is still incomprehensible.  All you have is a vague outline.  In the same way, we'll only ever have a vague outline of God, simply because human concepts can't get anywhere close to describing a supernatural being.  On the other hand, that shadow DOES exist, and we can still discuss the object based on the limited knowledge we have.

[echo_trail]

Ah, a silhuette. Fine metafor, sir. But then, how can you be so sure what God expects of you?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. If you wanna answer the above, please create a new thread, otherwise get back on topic with this one

[excruciator]

Indeed, that was a ill metaphor.

I would like to share a video with y'all, it's topic related..sorta.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nJDq2fYt5AQ

It screams sarcasm