• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Belief in God

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Doc Tiessen

Hurra

Unread post

Hi Sakis,Welcome! I am really glad to see another guy besides Dissident who believes in God.Maybe you have not read all my postings... but I also believe in God... but not out from a feeling or emotion... but because of reason and logic.To summarize my view:God = RandomnessFor me God exist and this has very practical and theoretical implications... I do not believe in a totally deterministic cosmos, but I believe that we have a choice and that the future is not fix. For me, we are a consequence of our genes, our education and environment... but even if it is very small... we have free choice. I refuse to accept a worldview in which my thinking and my feeling are only the consequences of chemical, physical and biological deterministic laws...I may be wrong... but I feel that we can make and shape our own future... that we are not part of a movie plot in which we are just marionettes dancing according to the screenplay that the mathematical determinism wants us to believe...I really cannot agree with those persons that say that all the events of nature have a cause and a cause, and a cause, and so on... and still do not realize that this cannot go forever... there must be a beginning... even if you do not want to call it randomness, but possibly Big Bang...The universe is not infinitely old and it is not infinitely big... there was a beginning...There must be an initial cause, for which there is no cause behind...This is an axiom... unfortunately it cannot be questioned further. Diversity is Good!
God et al

Re: Jessica Santillan

Unread post

Sorry AMD...you know that I cannot divulge info like that. You are simply testing me and that is a punishable offense. I will forgive you this time.God et al
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Laws

Unread post

Jeremy"The rule is: if it is complex, it evolved."I think this statement needs clarification. Complex means "Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated," per the second definition in the dictionary. The state of complexity is relative in your rule. Relative to a lesser numbered element, a greater numbered element is more complex. Relative to an asteroid, the moon is more complex.Do you mean a state of complexity greater than anything non-living? A state of complexity that is necessary to be able to do the things that theists believe he can do? Sorry for the personification. Also, the level of complexity can change based on the size of the system you're talking about. Our solar system is more complex than Alpha Centauri. Other galaxies are more complex than our solar system. I know, that's comparing apples to oranges, but hear me out. I read a book recently, yet I can't remember what it was called since I'm at work, but I'll explain the basic idea. The book talked about synchrony. For my explanation of example, I'll need use some things as an example. Some things the book used are fireflies, photons, heavenly bodies, swinging pendulums, etc. Let's call these things 'units.' The premise was that from the laws of physics, a collection of units spontaneously do an action that synchronizes with units of the same type. In some of these cases, the resulting synchrony appears in a rather complex fashion. A distinction must be made here. The synchrony is not only analog or digital in nature. In some cases described in the book, the synchrony was achieved in different ways within the same system. The different synchronies combined to create an even greater complexity. A collection of less complex things can work within the laws of physics to achieve a system of greater complexity than the sum of its parts. With a system the size of the universe, may there be units that we haven't yet discovered whose individual complexity is enough to achieve sentience when they synchronize? edit - I'm home now, and the book is called "Sync" by Stephen Strogatz - The emerging science of spontaneous order. Also - This wasn't meant to be a possible explanation for God, just the first of a few multi-post stepping stones to get to my point. Edited by: Interbane at: 10/11/04 9:29 pm
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Laws

Unread post

Vote for the next book folks. We only have 4 votes so far. Please cast your vote.Chris "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandella
Sakis Totlis

Re: Interbane

Unread post

O.K. Interbane I like and accept what you say. Your reasoning seems very sensible. So, let us level with it. I found still one more dictionary definition of the ones you quoted that is even closer to what I mean: Energy = capacity of acting, operating, or producing an effect. So, plz don't try to produce the impression that dictionaries tell a different story than what I mean. Capacity or Potential is exactly what I mean.Those who say Energy and mean Power they confuse two different concepts. Energy is a cause, Power is a result, a manifestation, and it is not the same thing, though Power is a result of Energy.Anyway, I mean that Energy is a Potential existing all around us, producing all phenomena, ever. Species evolve according to their intercourse with this potential, as homo sapience evolved out of homo erectus, when humans stood erected against earth's gravity (earth's strongest potential). Theology was a first crude human attempt to explore and explain exactly this all encompassing potential. Science is a more modern and advanced way aiming the same end. The transfer from theology to philosophy and science was an evolutionary jump of the human thought. That's why I like Energy better than God. It is a more technical (scientific) term, expressing the very same idea. Modern monotheistic theology has its roots in Israel. The old testament is a Jewish mythology with a strong theological inclination. Rational science and philosophy started in ancient Greece. Jewish theology was much more mature than childish Greek theology, so it prevailed for centuries. But Greek thought was a lot more advanced and vigorous than Jewish theological explanations of everything and when the western civilization matured enough Greek thought took its revenge with the boom of rationality and the sciences in the Renaissance. This site is strongly philosophical, rational, mature, scientific-like. I believe that my concept of god-energy is too. That's all I am trying to say. Edited by: Sakis Totlis at: 10/12/04 3:32 am
amd2003

To Interbane

Unread post

: In all my experience one of the very few things that falls right in the middle of the spectrum is whether or not god exists.The idea of a Santa Claus visiting all the houses in one night is incredible. It is obvious that parents buy presents and not Santa. And you see ordinary men and women dress up as Mall Santas. After seeing all these, where does whether Santa exists or not fall in your belief spectrum?Now consider this. The idea of a god supposed to do all the things attributed to it is incredible. And very few of those things ever happen. It is obvious that animals and minerals and modern major generals are the ones that do things in the world.Did you have a religious upbringing that makes it hard for you to give up believing in god?Please read the following quote from you, replacing "Flat earth theory" with "a belief in a personal god".: Flat earth theory? Maybe if I've been mislead all my life. The potential exists that I'm wrong about it, but we both know how much of a stretch that is... improbable to the point of impossible. Many people would say that it's ridiculous not to believe this is %100 wrong.amd Edited by: amd2003 at: 10/12/04 7:51 am
amd2003

To God

Unread post

: Sorry AMD...you know that I cannot divulge info like that. The reason being?: You are simply testing me and that is a punishable offense. I will forgive you this time.You politician or something?: God et al To what does the et al refers to? How many youse are out there? amd
amd2003

Steve Pinker on God

Unread post

"If the world unfolds according to a wise and merciful plan, why does it contain so much suffering? As the Yiddish expression says, If God lived on earth, people would break his windows." p. 560, How the Mind Works, Steve Pinker
Doc Tiessen

God

Unread post

It seems that several opinions about God have been recently expressed. I would like to summarize:Jeremy:God = nullDoc:God = RandomnessSakis:God = Energy??:God = the sum of everything in the universe??:God = (Jesus Christ, Nirvana, Budda, etc)I think we have gathered some good options. But possibly not still the whole diversity of the world. But well, we cannot consider them all in such a forum of freethinkers...I suggest a electoral campaing... lets make a presidential debate... any questions you want to ask your future boss?Vote for your favourite... lets make democracy... Diversity is Good!
User avatar
Interbane

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: God

Unread post

amd "Many people would say that it's ridiculous not to believe this is %100 wrong. I have another theory on why it is bad to deny that the potential that you are wrong exists, possibly placed in a thread titled "Anchored Truths."You forgot the last sentence. I have logical reasoning which says never to believe %100 percent in anything. Also, it can be said that anything over 99% in either end of the spectrum for me is a conviction, yet I still maintain the potential that I'm wrong. Human thought is fallible.I'm sorry if my paragraph structure caused you to misunderstand my intent. If you did understand yet pulled my meaning out of context, shame on you.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”