Wired is one of my favorite reads. The new issue deals with the concept
of no God. I can't begin to comprehend the concept of "organization out
of chaos", the "big bang". I'll read and post my thoughts. The cover
says,"No Heaven. No Hell. Just Science". What do you say?
--Hammertime
From my sidekick
21 comments:
It's interesting. The older I get the more I realize what I don't know. I don't know if there is a God, just science, both or neither. However, I think it's great to have discussions on all aspects of our belief system, whether they are based in theology or science. And what's really important is that, whatever you think or believe, trust in your faith, do good deeds worthy or your faith, and allow others to do the same even if your beliefs are not the same.
Thanks Hammertime!
There is no God in a world where MC Hammer is not living in my basement for the winter.
I am a firm believer that god is within--our very essence. Science shows us how his power operates,so to the degree that we master science/master self we can become more god-like which is the ultimate goal.
"We're made in his image and likeness...ye are all gods children of the most high god...the father is within..." all of this& plenty more tells us what we should strive for. The New Testament talks about what people will be like and it says we will be like HIM...to the degree we submit.
We are individuals: beings with two natures which cannot be divided. So we can choose the low animalistic nature that we start off with or the high godly nature. This is the journey,but sadly,most of us grow physically yet don't grow into our higher nature whereby we would truly have/live heaven on earth.
We are the only beings that have divine will(choice)............there's so much more I'd like to say on this but perhaps I've said enough for now.
I love the discussion. Lets keep it going. thanks to all.
Caleb...I firmly agree with your way of thinking.
If there's no heaven (in particular, the Christian type of heaven), then there's no use living. That's how I see it. Philosopher William Lane Craig writes on this subject here.
we are all a significant creation OF god; we are god's evolutionary essence... the eternal source of intelligence, knowledge and human love; which god has for us.
We are spirits, in human forms. Our heaven and hell; is in our mind.
with loving kindness,
North
PS--MC< check out my handmade greeting cards on my blog! I may be considered legally disabled; but, I can still "create" b/c god is part of me.. how can I not?
god is the pillar of logic.
I believe in "What ever Gets you through the Day".
To say there is science and no God is contradictory of the very concept of science itself. Any honest scientist would never believe or say that something so perfectly complex that it cannot be duplicated through science, that perfectly operates so precisely and consistently that its aspects can become reliable enough to be considered fact and law, something so well designed as the earth, universe, and life itself, could just come to be out of an explosion of gases. If someone said that a car just appeared when some mixed gases exploded in their lab, there's no scientist that would believe that, and a car doesn't even run nor is designed as perfectly as the earth. The scientist would say anything that runs and is designed as well as a car would have to have a creator, but yet they go back and say that the earth, which is designed so well that it cleanses and replenishes itself (at least when man isn't destroying it) and all of the natural systems work perfectly systematic and harmonious without end, didn't have a creator and just happened for no reason - please.
Common sense, as well as the principles of science itself, declare that there had to be a creator; otherwise all of science is worthless. Even the great Albert Einstein had to attest to this.
So, how can they say there is no creator? Because of one simple thing called pride. Their pride tells them that they cannot allow something to be greater than themselves (as in mankind) because that makes them less than the most powerful and highest existence in the universe, and their pride will not allow them to accept that. But, just as the scripture someone posted, the fear of the LORD is the beginning of all knowledge. They'd rather publicly deny the truth that they know their own philosophy supports, than risk rejection or embarrassment of their peers. But, if you jump out of a plane and proclaim you don't believe in gravity, you're still going to be squished when you hit the ground. May they find truth before it's too late.
Prophesizer
P.S. Even if they didn't believe, the ultimate truths taught by the word - respecting eachother, loving eachother, respecting the design and laws of nature, preserving life, etc. - could only have good results if followed with the full context of their lessons.
P.S.S. Why live if there's no purpose and you were just accidentally created for no reason without any purpose? Only a creator can give a creation a purpose.
To say that the earth created itself, or that nature runs its own course... Even such a statement as that, "it's just nature," is inadvertantly giving nature an acknowledgement of power and control, making then nature or chance or theory a god to the person whose faith is in it. Whatever you say caused the creation of life, whether it is scientific or not, you are giving it authority to yourself as a creator - something greater than you, so regardless you believe in a god. It's then just a question of what you give that power to. If one believed there is/was no God, why would one even waste time to try to refute it?
Maybe, just maybe, down inside, those same persons that fight it are fighting it so hard to try and convince themselves, because somewhere deep down there is hope that God does exist and that their life has no purpose, because no matter how hard they search, science can never prove its claim that there is no God.
After all, no one argues with a child that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. So, if someone truly doesn't believe in God, why even waste time debating it?
Regardless though, God doesn't need man to validate Himself.
I dont know Hammer! I just dont know...
Whatever you say caused the creation of life, whether it is scientific or not, you are giving it authority to yourself as a creator - something greater than you, so regardless you believe in a god.
With all due respect, this is just wrong. Nature is not a god. Gods cannot be examined, poked, prodded, observed and understood. Gods, if they existed, would obey no physical or natural laws and are therefore completely outside nature.
On the other hand, we do understand nature. We understand our role in it. We understand how we came to be a part of it, and we can explain it without relying on the intervention of an unobservable supernatural force.
In other words, we don't need to appeal to the idea of a god in order to explain our existence.
As you might guess, I don't believe in God or in gods. Your suggestion that by merely accepting the fact that the human race is here, we are acknowledging a belief in a god of some sort, makes no sense at all. It might be better for you to come to grips with the fact that not everybody feels the need to believe in a god. I'm not saying that one way is better than the other. I'm simply saying that they are fundamentally different, and just because you argue otherwise doesn't make it so.
Whatever you say caused the creation of life, whether it is scientific or not, you are giving it authority to yourself as a creator - something greater than you, so regardless you believe in a god.
With all due respect, this is just wrong. Nature is not a god. Gods cannot be examined, poked, prodded, observed and understood. Gods, if they existed, would obey no physical or natural laws and are therefore completely outside nature.
On the other hand, we do understand nature. We understand our role in it. We understand how we came to be a part of it, and we can explain it without relying on the intervention of an unobservable supernatural force.
In other words, we don't need to appeal to the idea of a god in order to explain our existence.
As you might guess, I don't believe in God or in gods. Your suggestion that by merely accepting the fact that the human race is here, we are acknowledging a belief in a god of some sort, makes no sense at all. It might be better for you to come to grips with the fact that not everybody feels the need to believe in a god. I'm not saying that one way is better than the other. I'm simply saying that they are fundamentally different, and just because you argue otherwise doesn't make it so.
Go get them Spencer
Your opinion of it being wrong is an opinion that you have the right to hold, but doesn't make it correct. However, you are entitled to such opinions and ultimately take your own destiny and eternity into your own hands.
I mean no offense though. I am only sharing these views because, as I do believe in the eternal word, I desire to see none face even a possibility of an eternal Hell. I cannot convince you of God; only the conviction of your own heart can do that. But I do know how God, through the sacrifice made by His son Jesus, has opened my mind and changed my life and the life of many more. One way of that is because I too used to put my trust in science and human reasoning, until my spirit through God convicted my heard and convinced me differently. I shall not continue to debate it, but I only offer a little food for thought.
Would it be better to believe and be wrong then die and nothing happen, than to reject it and be wrong and spend an eternity in torment? Also, if there is no purpose for us coming to be, that it just happened for no apparent reason, why even be here? Purpose (role in nature) is given.
I wish you the best of life, and peace, and welcome you to contact me if you ever do desire to seek or delve into matters of faith: not to argue, but to share and seek these answers to life together in brotherhood.
Prophesizer
Prophesizer, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I have no doubt of that. However, one should expect to be challenged on those opinions when there is not agreement with an opinion. There's very few things more precious in society than free discourse (my opinion of course), and that discourse can be conducted in the sprit of unity or not. That's a choice we all have to make every day. So, please don't consider this arguing, but a sharing of a perspective. I think that folks who don't associate with an organized religion are poorly understood. I'm not attempting to speak for them all, but this is a perspective that might help.
Now, when I express my opinion to you about faith, religion, the religious experience, etc. I can choose to say to you "one just have to have faith in that" at the end of what I'm saying. If I choose to do that, then I am pretty much just expecting the listener to throw reason to the wind, because what I am actually saying is that "you can not know this through reason, you just have to trust that I am telling you the truth and I think you should believe it too" (or at least that's my interpretation of it).
So, do you really mean to say that the religious experience can only be approached without reason? And so why should I believe any dogma or scripture that anyone has to offer that reason, science, or even empirically validated history can not validate? Don't forget - I counted myself among the faithful at one point. I wanted it to be true. Life would be simpler for me if it were.
So, why believe it then?
You can't really answer that question without referring back to the Bible, Torah, Koran, Upanishads, etc. and to "because you just have to have faith". And that, in logic terms, is a tautology, as in: it's true because I said so. Many or most of us are taught religion in just that manner by our parents and other loved ones who mean well, but at some point some of us started to wonder why it always comes down to “faith”. Faith stopped being a good reason for me when I started wondering why “faith” was always required. It all fell apart when I started asking questions.
There is an alternative to throwing reason out the door. The alternative is to observe the universe and the world around us and to experience it *without judging* it. Seeking to understand our place in this universe requires an open mind, without calling things "good" or "evil" and without fear of eternal damnation. (Just what the heck is eternal damnation anyway and why is that a necessary part of Christianity? Could it be because the religious establishments (Christia or otherwise) have historically sought to control people? Food for thought.)
So, would it be better to believe and to be wrong, than to not believe at all? No. Because faith without reason is not real belief anyway if you believe in reason. You can not be truthfully faithful to your religion and your God when you believe in reason, because reason does not allow for unexamined belief in religious dogma and scripture.
But now, if you don't or won't believe in reason, then you have a very big dilemma indeed. How is anything to make sense at all without it? From what basis can you operate without the rudiments of the scientific process/cause and effect/logic if you don't believe in reason?
So, where am I without faith? I'm doing fine. I have wonder. I have awe. I still have a religious experience, but without the religion, dogma, or scripture. I have my abilities. I have the people around me that I love every day and that love me back. But I don't have fear anymore. I don't have a contrived set of rules around a scripture that's been mangled into nonsense through repeated editing, well intentioned censoring, and translating over the millennia. I don't have a belief system that will ever lead me to religious war against neighbors who happen to believe in a different god and different scripture.
In short, I am free. It's a sort of freedom of which anyone can partake and I invite you to do so.
-Vince
VincePlatt@yahoo.com
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/evolution.shtml
Take a look at this site, the second video.
Oh great, the banana argument. I sincerely hoped that this one didn't come up because it's not very useful to the case for theism, much less Christianity or another specific religion. I assume your point is in support of intelligent design right? Either that or you're just yanking my chain. With that in mind…
For anyone who does view the video, please know that bananas as we know them today are only convenient and nice to eat because of our own interference in nature. Selective breeding and re-planting are what makes the banana what it is today. You'll have to go read up on that if you want to verify it. I don't have time to sit here and churn out source material and it’s not my area anyway.
As for the intelligent design argument in general, I think the way it's presented is the problem; though there *may* be a kernel of truth in it. God himself (if ever there existed such an anthropomorphic being dreamed up by human ego and hubris), if he had designed the human eyeball or any other part of our anatomy in theory would have done a perfect job no? After all, he is in theory an all powerful and all knowing being. Then why do some people go blind? Why do we have imperfect vision? Why are some of us born without eyesight? Remember, this eyesight is supposedly designed perfectly by a perfect being. Would such a God do a half-ways job like this?
"Because God wants to teach us lessons", you might say. And why would God need to create imperfect beings only to teach us lessons I ask?
It really doesn’t add up. The traditional view of some sort of God that holds some sort of personal interest in us and is all powerful, all knowing, compassionate, good, and triumvirate as all Christians believe, doesn’t make sense. That kind of God doesn’t exist as far as I can see and the kind of God we like to think is “on our side” in way especially doesn’t make sense.
But that’s not the end of the story. The atheist traditionally declares victory at this point because they have a political agenda too. I’m not that guy. The story doesn’t end there because there are still some fundamental (perhaps unanswerable) questions to be asked. If natural selection, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. are all views on forces of the universe, then whence came the forces? We think we understand there is such a thing as the big bang, entropy, and the imperceptible oscillation of the universe between created and not-created. From where did those forces come from? Never mind the prime mover, where is the prime conceiver of these forces, “laws”, and the mathematical method that apparently permeates all of it?
The very image of this demands, and can only be expressed with, poetry. Such is the raw matter for scripture and contemplation of our scientific knowledge coupled with our sense of awe and need to experience these mysteries is a spiritual experience of its own. It is not atheism, nor theism, nor Christianity, nor Islam, nor Hinduism, ad infinitum. It is the simple and pure mystical experience not to be contaminated with mere interpretation if it is treasured.
I subscribe to Wired, cool mag, but it seems to have less and less content all the time, and mostly consists of ads and wacky promotions these days...
all thoughts and comments are helpful and I appreciate the postive spirit in which we have approached this sensitive subject.
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
Post a Comment