Lots of topics Write4. I gave the Kallisto quote as something that is to be disagreed with. It’s one of those quotes that I can’t believe a theologian would write down and not look at it and realize his life’s work is worthless. As for spiritual coming before physical, that’s not an opinion, that’s pretty easily verified historical fact, but we now see it as something that just filled in a gap.
The OP question asks "if there is a god" Allow me to counter with the question, "is there a need for a God (as commonly defined)?"Do the math and count the believers.
The OP question asks "if there is a god" Allow me to counter with the question, "is there a need for a God (as commonly defined)?"Do the math and count the believers. Do the math and count the number of ignorant believers v knowledgeable atheists. About the same ratio, wouldn't you say? The more we understand the actual mathematical evolutionary functions of the universe, the less need for "magic" and "mracles". George Carlin answered the question in definitive terms. His observations are brutally honest, but his logic is undisputable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfhG9p3b8Es
The paradox we are working on here is, “Is there a God?"
How do you answer the question if you cannot define “God?"
This being an atheist website, CFI discussion forum posters (CFI) for the most part is only to the point of understanding that there is no “deity" type of god or gods.
And CFI talks about how science is backing its thinking. But on this subject matter I don’t see the science.
The data used for most religious discussions is the bible. And if you don’t understand the Gods. And are not able to define the Gods in the bible. There is no way you can call it a fairy tale or say you are applying science. The most you should say is you have a personal view points based upon your belief.
Next question, do you want a scientific definition of God, or one that only applies to people today?
Simply put, we all know what water is. It is a liquid we drink. But the scientific definition says it is a liquid, gas and solid. And scientifically god may be physical as well as a psychological state of being.
Right now, at this point of the postings. I think we should be working on removing the paradox, by defining what God is according to the original text and what God was to the people when those text ideas were formed. Once we understand the core data, then subjects like heaven will have very understandable answers.
The OP question asks "if there is a god" Allow me to counter with the question, "is there a need for a God (as commonly defined)?"Do the math and count the believers. Thanks for the one sentence response Mike. And thanks for demonstrating your lack of understanding of modern enlightened thought. Democracy, modern law, modern education, and science are all based on the idea that reality trumps thinking every time. This makes the goal of aligning yourself with reality the most important goal. NT Wright talks about how this is religious tradition, and I agree. I just think all religions have been wrong on most points. With that goal, one person, with a good idea can change the world. But trying to spread your idea with majority rule and might makes right won't work. If the idea has merit, you don't need numbers, you only need to be able to express it well and provide evidence for it and get others to see it using reason. The numbers will follow, so yes numbers are an indicator, "doing the math" is important. But if you count the number of people in China who believe some certain thing, you also have to look at how the government controls education and limits their access to the world wide web. That sort of oppression never lasts. It exists somewhere in the world always at one time or another, but it always ends and it ends by people speaking the good timeless ideas.
<![CDATA
The paradox we are working on here is, “Is there a God?"
How do you answer the question if you cannot define “God?"
a) There is no paradox, there is only the question.
par·a·dox. NOUN
1.a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory:
“a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox”
This being an atheist website, CFI discussion forum posters (CFI) for the most part is only to the point of understanding that there is no “deity" type of god or gods. And CFI talks about how science is backing its thinking. But on this subject matter I don’t see the science.That is because the notion of God is NOT scientifically supportable. It is merely an old false belief system.
The data used for most religious discussions is the bible. And if you don’t understand the Gods. And are not able to define the Gods in the bible. There is no way you can call it a fairy tale or say you are applying science. The most you should say is you have a personal view points based upon your belief.Does the bible qualify as a scientific document on which any scientific argument can be made? I clearly understand the evolution of religion and the abstract analogies contained in the Bible. As I previously mentioned, there are some valuable secular truths contained in the bible. That does not not make the bible a scientific document on which a scientific argument can be made. Moreover, of all the divergent philosophical spiritual literature in existence, which one is the correct one? At last count there are some 80-100 active religions being practiced. Are they all true? http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif You are right, discussions on the existence of God cannot be formulated in scientific terms. But that cotradicts your earlier statement that we should be able to construct a mathematical equatin to prove any kind of nonsense. It belongs in the realm of Psychology, which can probe into the mental evolution of the concept of God in various parts of the world. But I have yet to find a definitive book, which ties it all together into a comprehensive whole. Moreover each religion considers all other religious as false. Can we call that spiritual falsification? We might as well ask "is there a 'FSM"?. Pastafarians also have a bible you know. Why should that not be introduced as evidence for a God named Flying Spaghetti Monster. Because it is nonsense? Can we mathematically prove the existence of a FSM? Mathematics can be made to fit all nonsense, no?]]>
Lots of topics Write4. I gave the Kallisto quote as something that is to be disagreed with. It's one of those quotes that I can't believe a theologian would write down and not look at it and realize his life's work is worthless. As for spiritual coming before physical, that's not an opinion, that's pretty easily verified historical fact, but we now see it as something that just filled in a gap.I agree. That is why I remarked on the headline of that little quote. Of course if it was intended as irony to begin with, I also agree with you.
That is because the notion of God is NOT scientifically supportable. It is merely an old false belief system.You can not say that scientifically, because you have not defined God. Can you say for sure that there was not a group of people called the Gods? Who were the people who domesticated almost all the animals, fruit and vegetables we use today? A couple of things that one should understand. One is, way before the OT was written. Mankind had developed high levels of skills in writing and law that are equal to what we have today. Just read some of the contracts for renting a house, leasing an orchard to grow a crop. Adopting a child. Inheritance and divorce. Buying land and livestock. Point being if God is not scientifically supportable it the text. And the text is unclear and does not give us a good understanding and enough details, it was done out of design, not because of the lack of ability to do so. Let’s take the God created man statement. If as we have talked about, god was knowledge, then the story goes that the people known as the gods, created man. So from a logical point. Are there any types of man that showed up in the area and time that this story talks about? And the answer is yes. The white skin people showed up and can fit the story. Right now we have the white skin people suddenly appearing on earth right next to where the upper and lower god were about 8 thousand years ago. The scientific question would be, if white skin people were not domesticated, how did they show up with no evolution?
That is because the notion of God is NOT scientifically supportable. It is merely an old false belief system.You can not say that scientifically, because you have not defined God. Can you say for sure that there was not a group of people called the Gods? Who were the people who domesticated almost all the animals, fruit and vegetables we use today? I believe the term used for people engaged in the domestication of animals is "farmer and "shepherd"? If I recall the sons of Adam and Eve , Cain was the farmer and Abel was the shepherd.
A couple of things that one should understand.Enlighten me.
One is, way before the OT was written. Mankind had developed high levels of skills in writing and law that are equal to what we have today. Just read some of the contracts for renting a house, leasing an orchard to grow a crop. Adopting a child. Inheritance and divorce. Buying land and livestock.True, the OT could not have been written by illiterate people, a fact I alread mentioned in a previous post, which apparently you did not read close enough.
Point being if God is not scientifically supportable it the text. And the text is unclear and does not give us a good understanding and enough details, it was done out of design, not because of the lack of ability to do so.What a clever idea; "clarity through obscurity".
Let’s take the God created man statement. If as we have talked about, god was knowledge, then the story goes that the people known as the gods, created man.Gods are knowledgeable people?
So from a logical point. Are there any types of man that showed up in the area and time that this story talks about? And the answer is yes. The white skin people showed up and can fit the story. Right now we have the white skin people suddenly appearing on earth right next to where the upper and lower god were about 8 thousand years ago. The scientific question would be, if white skin people were not domesticated, how did they show up with no evolution?That statement is not even worthy of a response. In fact, I am withdrawing from this thread before it degenerates any further than it already has. Bye, bye, God Bless!
Sorry to see you go. This is not racial. It is the results of the UV study that has just came out that makes this post possible. The UV study has proven that white skin people did not evolve in Northern Europe as believed. The genes for white skin is not showing up in any of the graves. The data right now has the white skin people showing up 8 thousand years ago and next to India. With that new data out, we need to review what history has told us. That is all that is happening here. Take care and god bless.So from a logical point. Are there any types of man that showed up in the area and time that this story talks about? And the answer is yes. The white skin people showed up and can fit the story. Right now we have the white skin people suddenly appearing on earth right next to where the upper and lower god were about 8 thousand years ago. The scientific question would be, if white skin people were not domesticated, how did they show up with no evolution?That statement is not even worthy of a response. In fact, I am withdrawing from this thread before it degenerates any further than it already has. Bye, bye, God Bless!
Sorry for taking so long, real busy, getting the farm ready for winter.
Following up my last post.
This is where we need to change our way of thinking about the past. When it is said, the notion of God is NOT scientifically supportable. That thinking is very new. What I am saying is God was a term that meant knowledge, therefore it was not only scientific. It had to be look at as the science of the time.
Look at the way they thought at the time. And let’s say you are five years old. When you were 4 years old you could not add 1 plus 1 to equal 2. But the science is proof that God exists because now at 5 years of age you can add 1 plus 1 to equal 2. And if the knowledge had not been sent by sunlight from god to you, how are you now able to add 1 plus 1? Pure science. Because that knowledge was not there before. Now it is. Can you explain any other way this would be possible at this time in history?
Compare this to the thinking at the time Ether Winds were pure science.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Write4U. This conversation is becoming pointless. Knowledge doesn’t just appear in your head by magic, or by “sunlight”. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean.
I counted 5 people on this thread who directly said you’re statements are somewhere on the scale between non-scientific to nonsense. A couple more have checked in and not given you much agreement. You’re not finding an audience here. Are you finding one anywhere? Why do you keep doing this?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Write4U. This conversation is becoming pointless. Knowledge doesn't just appear in your head by magic, or by "sunlight". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.This is a very key point about religion of the past. And it is hard to explain. I will use the Michelson-Morley experiment as reference then move to the mechanics of how the past religion worked. It was scientifically understood that space was filled with aether or known as ‘ether wind". Or how else could the sunlight reach earth from the sun? From 1887 to the 1920’s scientists attempted to measure these ether winds. This was accepted and understood science going back in time. How far back in time? The Rig Vega in pre-history says that space is void and everything is built from matter. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that it was just impossible to measure the ether winds on earth. When the fact was, the experiment worked correctly. Mankind’s thinking was the problem. There were no Ether Winds, never was. Mankind did not understand how sight worked either. How was man able to see? Mankind did not understand the thinking process either. In mummifying the brain was discarded because they could figure out the need for the brain. Knowledge was thought of as physical. And it was kept in the heart. Religion and deity gods. Using Egyptian here, because in the bible Jesus talks about the light (knowledge). The common factor in gods were that they all controlled knowledge in some type or form. Knowledge was power. Understand what the Gnostic Cloud was in the bible. Example. Take the little boy who is adding 1 plus 1 to equal 2. When he was born his dad, mom and other relatives went to the temple and paid to have knowledge sent to the boy. Now what you could not do is challenge that the god did not control the knowledge. This would cause a curse to happen on you and your family of really bad things. Not just your family, but your off spring for many generations too. The gods kept this power because how sunlight and knowledge worked was the accepted science of the time. The boy’s parents had no other science to choose from until the Greek and Romans started changing science to include the use of the brain for knowledge. Jesus was telling the people to trust and believe in him for the light (knowledge) instead of Ra. A step in a new science that moved knowledge away from the heart to the brain. In other words, you did not have to pay the temple for knowledge. Jesus just had to take the curse away. Point being, the science of how knowledge worked changed. The science of how sunlight traveled to man was not changed until the 1920’s. By 2015, we find it hard to understand that mankind ever understood science in those manners. Until we understand how man understood science we will not understand how the past religions really worked.
It’s hard to tell when he’s saying something is actually true versus something was once believed to be true. Sometimes is it seems that since some ancient book says things were a certain way, he’s saying that is the way those things actually were. As if there were really gods at one time, and knowledge really did come to you from the sun, but then because of Jesus, and later because of scientific experiments, knowledge is now exchanged using our brains.
A couple of my college friends who played Dungeons and Dragons believed this. It’s even in the Arthurian legends. Merlin says something about the “time of the many gods is passing as the one god of man pushes them out.” The idea is, magic arrows and witches spells were once real, but they somehow stopped working.
This of course is contrary to a fundamental truth of science, that the laws of the universe are consistent across all time and space.
I counted 5 people on this thread who directly said you're statements are somewhere on the scale between non-scientific to nonsense. A couple more have checked in and not given you much agreement. You're not finding an audience here. Are you finding one anywhere? Why do you keep doing this?Your right. It is next to impossible to keep this subject in a scientific level. No different than try to tell someone in the 1860’s that Either Winds did not exist. There are no challenges to the science, people are just having a hard time because they have a picture or belief of the past in their minds. I can’t help that, history is what it is. I cannot change history. I think that the thought of white skin people being domesticated will be unaccepted by many no matter what the science will back up. The next problem is that people have a hard time understanding that our ancestors could think of knowledge as a physical thing. And I was no different myself. It took me years to get a grasp of the past. When I did, things like the UV study was of no surprise to me. Now, you can take the time and understand the history or you can go on believing that our past ancestors were total idiots, and that you are so much smarter than they were. Keep patting yourself on the back for having this superior knowledge of understanding. That is the easy path. Or take the time and learn about your past ancestors, it is your inheritance. I also think that if our past was understood by the people. That the fairy tale belief systems in religions we have today would be greatly diminished. I think most people today would be like their ancestors and go with the science. That is if the science can be properly explained. And I think people would change today if you could explain how science has worked with man. But, people will stay with religion until they understand the missing parts that make better sense than religion. People look at the earth and how it was made for them. And that must have taken a god to do that. People need to be told about the Age of Domestication.
It's hard to tell when he's saying something is actually true versus something was once believed to be true. Sometimes is it seems that since some ancient book says things were a certain way, he's saying that is the way those things actually were. As if there were really gods at one time, and knowledge really did come to you from the sun, but then because of Jesus, and later because of scientific experiments, knowledge is now exchanged using our brains. A couple of my college friends who played Dungeons and Dragons believed this. It's even in the Arthurian legends. Merlin says something about the "time of the many gods is passing as the one god of man pushes them out." The idea is, magic arrows and witches spells were once real, but they somehow stopped working. This of course is contrary to a fundamental truth of science, that the laws of the universe are consistent across all time and space.I understand what you are saying. But my skills of communicating is limited at best. But if you think my post are too long now, as I do. I have to give up some clarity to shorten the post. My hope was that questions would be ask to clear these issues up. I got to say, I am very shocked that the people on this site, seem to have no clue to what domestication was in history. They seem to think the earth evolved to their needs and wants. A real self-centered method of thinking.
I understand what you are saying. But my skills of communicating is limited at best. But if you think my post are too long now, as I do. I have to give up some clarity to shorten the post. My hope was that questions would be ask to clear these issues up. I got to say, I am very shocked that the people on this site, seem to have no clue to what domestication was in history. They seem to think the earth evolved to their needs and wants. A real self-centered method of thinking.People have asked questions, you don't answer them, and they and I have pointed out how don't answer them. We know what domestication is. It's not gods creating white men or whatever you are talking about. It's not a language barrier, it's you refusing to follow to logic. It's you making connections from something you think Jesus intended to an experiment in the 20th century.
I understand what you are saying. But my skills of communicating is limited at best. But if you think my post are too long now, as I do. I have to give up some clarity to shorten the post. My hope was that questions would be ask to clear these issues up. I got to say, I am very shocked that the people on this site, seem to have no clue to what domestication was in history. They seem to think the earth evolved to their needs and wants. A real self-centered method of thinking.People have asked questions, you don't answer them, and they and I have pointed out how don't answer them. We know what domestication is. It's not gods creating white men or whatever you are talking about. It's not a language barrier, it's you refusing to follow to logic. It's you making connections from something you think Jesus intended to an experiment in the 20th century. No, I disagree. I kept answering the questions. But the answer was beyond their comprehension. Example I was told how many times I did not define god. Yet I came onto this post in post # 1 defining god. And I have not changed from that definition. Domestication. I disagree with you. We don’t know that white man was not domesticated. The stories from the upper and lower gods say they created man. So what man did they create? Science would look at all possibilities. Now, I have ask you a question. Will you answer? Where did the white skin people come from 8 thousand years ago? We have found no evolution yet. I got to be traveling the rest of the day. Will get back to you tonight. Mike.
Domestication. I disagree with you. We don’t know that white man was not domesticated. The stories from the upper and lower gods say they created man. So what man did they create? Science would look at all possibilities.Of course you disagree, that’s what you do best. You’re not so much asking a question as making an argument from ignorance. You’re saying there is a question that I can’t answer to your satisfaction then you’re saying “we don’t know that white man was not domesticated". We also don’t know that white man was not the result of genetic manipulation by aliens from another galaxy, but I’m not going to make you answer questions about that. Science does not use stories as evidence or “look at all possibilities" that come from stories. That is not a requirement of science. There are other stories that are equally possible, why aren’t you considering those?