(January 5, 2019 at 3:34 am)Angelina Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 8:12 am)polymath257 Wrote: No. Why would it be evidence of a God? Remember that God is supposed to be a supernatural being that is able to create universes, dictate morality, etc.

How is the existence of physical things evidence of a supernatural?

Because if God created the universe, that means God created everything in the universe.

If is the key word here.

Here's another if scenario for you:

If the universe is eternal, and if God exists, then God did not create the universe. In this case, you could perhaps instead argue that the universe (though it is eternal) is nevertheless contingent on God.

Here's yet another one:

If the universe is eternal, and if God does not exist, then the universe is most probably responsible for the existence of everything in it.

(January 4, 2019 at 10:32 pm)Angelina Wrote: Other people do offer identical but competing assertions regarding what they consider to be God. Although if you were talking about Judaists or Muslims, that is all the same God (the God of Abraham). If it were say a Hindu or a Jainist or sikhist, I would not criticize their right to believe in what I would call simply a different version of the same God. I would encourage them to embrace the teachings of Jesus and I would share my own experiences with them.

I'm getting tripped up on the phrase "different version of the same God."

God is supposed to be real, right? If you had a friend named Ted, and coworker described a relationship with someone who sounded very similar, you wouldn't call this new person "a different version of the same Ted," would you? You wouldn't do that if it was some other individual (who is not Ted). And you wouldn't do it if your coworker knew the same Ted as you knew, but related to him differently. Hence "different version of the same God" sounds odd to me. Which is it? Is it the same God or not?

I'm not trying to be contentious. It just seems to me that believers have faith in a great deal more than God's existence: namely, a tradition (that was at times spread through violence and monied interests) and/or a set of texts (which accumulated largely due to historical happenstance). A creationist is not merely resolute in his belief that God created the world in six days. He is convinced that the authors of Genesis delivered an unblemished account of the proceedings. Faith in this is not just faith in God. It is faith in people... like those who wrote the Bible... and those who followed thereafter, believed it to be true, and impressed the idea of Biblical authority upon their children.

Religion spreads like languages spread-- through conquer, migration, etc. People are generally raised with a given religion. It is not the case that people generally encourage agnosticism in their children and then allow them to chose --or not choose-- religion whenever they wish (which is a good way, I think). But this isn't the way religion is given to people. It is culturally instilled.

So to return to the "different version of the same God" thing: you could say that Sikh or Jain religions are rooted in contact with the same God described in the Bible, but that would open a whole new can of worms, wouldn't it? It would be considered a heresy by most religious adherents across the globe. Not because it denies their God... but because it would undermine their faith in particular people (say, the authors of the Bible) whom they believe are the only ones to have accurate information about God.

(January 5, 2019 at 5:15 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 4, 2019 at 10:32 pm)Angelina Wrote: Other people do offer identical but competing assertions regarding what they consider to be God. Although if you were talking about Judaists or Muslims, that is all the same God (the God of Abraham). If it were say a Hindu or a Jainist or sikhist, I would not criticize their right to believe in what I would call simply a different version of the same God. I would encourage them to embrace the teachings of Jesus and I would share my own experiences with them.

I'm getting tripped up on the phrase "different version of the same God."

God is supposed to be real, right? If you had a friend named Ted, and coworker described a relationship with someone who sounded very similar, you wouldn't call this new person "a different version of the same Ted," would you? You wouldn't do that if it was some other individual (who is not Ted). And you wouldn't do it if your coworker knew the same Ted as you knew, but related to him differently. Hence "different version of the same God" sounds odd to me. Which is it? Is it the same God or not?

I'm not trying to be contentious. It just seems to me that believers have faith in a great deal more than God's existence: namely, a tradition (that was at times spread through violence and monied interests) and/or a set of texts (which accumulated largely due to historical happenstance). A creationist is not merely resolute in his belief that God created the world in six days. He is convinced that the authors of Genesis delivered an unblemished account of the proceedings. Faith in this is not just faith in God. It is faith in people... like those who wrote the Bible... and those who followed thereafter, believed it to be true, and impressed the idea of Biblical authority upon their children.

Religion spreads like languages spread-- through conquer, migration, etc. People are generally raised with a given religion. It is not the case that people generally encourage agnosticism in their children and then allow them to chose --or not choose-- religion whenever they wish (which is a good way, I think). But this isn't the way religion is given to people. It is culturally instilled.

So to return to the "different version of the same God" thing: you could say that Sikh or Jain religions are rooted in contact with the same God described in the Bible, but that would open a whole new can of worms, wouldn't it? It would be considered a heresy by most religious adherents across the globe. Not because it denies their God... but because it would undermine their faith in particular people (say, the authors of the Bible) whom they believe are the only ones to have accurate information about God.

If you take Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the proponents all generally believe in a Creator/God.  A lot of the variations in belief surround Jesus.  The Hebrew people believed that a glorious king would come, so many don't accept that Jesus is the Son of God, because he was humble in origin.  Obviously Christians do believe he is the Son of God.  Islamic Muslims believe he was merely a prophet.  Understanding can also be tricky because God is believe to exist as three persons, but they are also unified.  One of the struggles too, if you're using and English translation of the Bible, is that instead of translating to the specific names, which are descriptive, we usually just see "God."

(January 5, 2019 at 3:34 am)Angelina Wrote:

(December 31, 2018 at 8:12 am)polymath257 Wrote: No. Why would it be evidence of a God? Remember that God is supposed to be a supernatural being that is able to create universes, dictate morality, etc.

How is the existence of physical things evidence of a supernatural?

Because if God created the universe, that means God created everything in the universe.

Okay, you're on. Prove that a god exists. Prove that he created the universe and everything in it. Prove that he's your god.

(January 5, 2019 at 12:46 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(January 5, 2019 at 3:34 am)Angelina Wrote: Because if God created the universe, that means God created everything in the universe.

Okay, you're on. Prove that a god exists. Prove that he created the universe and everything in it. Prove that he's your god.

I have 100 pages of evidence that this thread exists and not one piece of evidence that a god exists.

This thread had more evidence than there is for a god.

(January 5, 2019 at 6:32 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: If you take Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the proponents all generally believe in a Creator/God.  A lot of the variations in belief surround Jesus.  The Hebrew people believed that a glorious king would come, so many don't accept that Jesus is the Son of God, because he was humble in origin.  Obviously Christians do believe he is the Son of God.  Islamic Muslims believe he was merely a prophet.  Understanding can also be tricky because God is believe to exist as three persons, but they are also unified.  One of the struggles too, if you're using and English translation of the Bible, is that instead of translating to the specific names, which are descriptive, we usually just see "God."

Sure, the Abrahamic faiths all purport to worship the same god. But the question I was trying to formulate was: Assuming that the one Abrahamic god exists (as you believe) how can you assume that the Jews and Apostles are the only ones who have related to him and properly described him? When a Hindu saint describes Brahman in the Vedas, how can you be sure that he isn't describing the entity you call Yahweh?

The criticism that I am thrusting at the Judeo-Christian doctrine is that it not only posits that the authors of the Bible accurately describe God (which entails faith in people, not just God) but it also monopolizes God. To believe that the Bible accurately describes God is one thing. To assume that the Christians and Jews are the only ones who have had contact with God is quite another.

Some time ago, I posted a more exhaustive version of the argument here. If you're in the mood to look it over, I'd at least like to hear your opinion on it. It's a real sticking point with me, and one of the reasons I find religion so nonsensical. It just doesn't add up. Long story short, I find it incomprehensible that the God who created the great wide cosmos would be so petty as to not communicate with mystics who fail to call him by his proper Jewish name. 

Hence (to me) it seems more rational to conclude that "religion" is merely a  petty device that the ancients adopted to distinguish insiders from outsiders. And it serves much the same purpose today. (Not that I think religion is entirely reducible to that or anything. But that explains a lot, doesn't it?)

(January 5, 2019 at 6:48 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 5, 2019 at 6:32 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: If you take Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the proponents all generally believe in a Creator/God.  A lot of the variations in belief surround Jesus.  The Hebrew people believed that a glorious king would come, so many don't accept that Jesus is the Son of God, because he was humble in origin.  Obviously Christians do believe he is the Son of God.  Islamic Muslims believe he was merely a prophet.  Understanding can also be tricky because God is believe to exist as three persons, but they are also unified.  One of the struggles too, if you're using and English translation of the Bible, is that instead of translating to the specific names, which are descriptive, we usually just see "God."

Sure, the Abrahamic faiths all purport to worship the same god. But the question I was trying to formulate was: Assuming that the one Abrahamic god exists (as you believe) how can you assume that the Jews and Apostles are the only ones who have related to him and properly described him? When a Hindu saint describes Brahman in the Vedas, how can you be sure that he isn't describing the entity you call Yahweh?

The criticism that I am thrusting at the Judeo-Christian doctrine is that it not only posits that the authors of the Bible accurately describe God (which entails faith in people, not just God) but it also monopolizes God. To believe that the Bible accurately describes God is one thing. To assume that the Christians and Jews are the only ones who have had contact with God is quite another.

Some time ago, I posted a more exhaustive version of the argument here. If you're in the mood to look it over, I'd at least like to hear your opinion on it. It's a real sticking point with me, and one of the reasons I find religion so nonsensical. It just doesn't add up. Long story short, I find it incomprehensible that the God who created the great wide cosmos would be so petty as to not communicate with mystics who fail to call him by his proper Jewish name. 

Hence (to me) it seems more rational to conclude that "religion" is merely a  petty device that the ancients adopted to distinguish insiders from outsiders. And it serves much the same purpose today. (Not that I think religion is entirely reducible to that or anything. But that explains a lot, doesn't it?)

I don't assume that they are the only ones.  It's also not about getting everything right.  In a lot of ways it's quite the opposite.  We get things wrong, and make various other mistakes, but all-in-all, it's okay.  You probably here the word "relationship" a lot from people who believe in God.  That's what it's about.  Relationship with God and relationship with each other.  If you call God a different name, then I can't imagine that it matters, as long as you know and God knows who you are talking about.   Sure there are laws, guidelines, etc, but that's just part of the whole picture.  If I read "Do not murder", I just nod my head and go about life.  I wasn't going to murder anyone, but it reinforces that I shouldn't.  One of the misconceptions I've witnessed a lot is that a lot of people put it all in a box filled with do's and don'ts, but that's not it.  We live, help each other out, love God, love one another.  How that takes place varies depending on the person.  

Please allow me to share one excerpt in the Bible where Paul is sharing with the people at the Areopagus at Mars' Hill.  The people don't know who God is, so they ascribe to him with an "unknown name."  Paul sees it superstitious, but he attempts to make it relational without going out of his way to insult them.

Acts 17:22-29 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.


He's telling him that he can share what they don't understand, but want to know and till then had to attribute to an "unknown."  Now they are not only being given the opportunity to know, but to become part of that relationship.

I want to read what you shared in your other post, but I gotta give my eyeballs a break.  Will try to check it out later today.  If I don't get to it, feel free to remind me, so I don't miss it.

(January 5, 2019 at 5:15 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 4, 2019 at 10:32 pm)Angelina Wrote: Other people do offer identical but competing assertions regarding what they consider to be God. Although if you were talking about Judaists or Muslims, that is all the same God (the God of Abraham). If it were say a Hindu or a Jainist or sikhist, I would not criticize their right to believe in what I would call simply a different version of the same God. I would encourage them to embrace the teachings of Jesus and I would share my own experiences with them.

I'm getting tripped up on the phrase "different version of the same God."

God is supposed to be real, right? If you had a friend named Ted, and coworker described a relationship with someone who sounded very similar, you wouldn't call this new person "a different version of the same Ted," would you? You wouldn't do that if it was some other individual (who is not Ted). And you wouldn't do it if your coworker knew the same Ted as you knew, but related to him differently. Hence "different version of the same God" sounds odd to me. Which is it? Is it the same God or not?

I'm not trying to be contentious. It just seems to me that believers have faith in a great deal more than God's existence: namely, a tradition (that was at times spread through violence and monied interests) and/or a set of texts (which accumulated largely due to historical happenstance). A creationist is not merely resolute in his belief that God created the world in six days. He is convinced that the authors of Genesis delivered an unblemished account of the proceedings. Faith in this is not just faith in God. It is faith in people... like those who wrote the Bible... and those who followed thereafter, believed it to be true, and impressed the idea of Biblical authority upon their children.

Religion spreads like languages spread-- through conquer, migration, etc. People are generally raised with a given religion. It is not the case that people generally encourage agnosticism in their children and then allow them to chose --or not choose-- religion whenever they wish (which is a good way, I think). But this isn't the way religion is given to people. It is culturally instilled.

So to return to the "different version of the same God" thing: you could say that Sikh or Jain religions are rooted in contact with the same God described in the Bible, but that would open a whole new can of worms, wouldn't it? It would be considered a heresy by most religious adherents across the globe. Not because it denies their God... but because it would undermine their faith in particular people (say, the authors of the Bible) whom they believe are the only ones to have accurate information about God.

There is only one God who is the creator of the universe and all life. If they feel that had an experience with God, I believe there is only one possible that they could be referring to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be. Also, I am not a biblical literalist. The Bible is a series of important metaphors and morals lessons.

---

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: No;the existence of a thing is not evidence for the cause of that thing. The cause must be shown to exist and be capable of the effect to be taken seriously.  Simply claiming that it exists doesn't cut it.

So you're saying things just mysteriously created themselves then? Not possible. And don't try to claim science can explain how things can exist, because I know science cannot really do that to any great extent.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: Do you think an incredibly complex, powerful, intelligent consciousness could have just materialized out of nothing on its own?  If so, how do you justify this belief?  Claiming "god" doesn't resolve any questions, it just pushes them back one level and sets up a different infinite regress.  

If you claim that the god always existed then you have to explain why that's possible but it isn't possible that the energy that makes up the universe could not have always existed.

God is eternal, with no beginning and no end. Energy did always exist, but it required God in order for it to exist for us in it's current forms.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: Abiogenesis and evolution are fascinating processes and provide plausible frameworks for all of the diversity of life.  It is personally much more satisfying to have an actual explanation than to just give up and claim it was a magical being.

God is not magical, God is all knowing. Abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis and evolution does not explain the beauty of flowers at all.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: The only cop out is to throw in the towel and say "god did it" because you don't know something.  Saying it was god actually doesn't mean anything as "god" is reduced to a word that means "unknown" but lets people pretend they have an answer.

God is the only plausible option.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: Exactly.  The thing is not evidence of the cause of the thing.  The existence of the universe is not evidence for the cause of the universe.  You have to provide evidence for the proposed cause itself.

No, the enormity, beauty and complexity is definitely evidence of a cause.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: That is an equivocation of the word "living".  Being in motion doesn't make something alive and plenty of things exert force on other things without any part being alive.

I don't agree with you. Nothing exerts force without a cause. You just don't believe in God so you pretend all the forces just happen out of nothing I guess.

(January 6, 2019 at 1:55 am)Angelina Wrote: If they feel that had an experience with God, I believe there is only one possible that they could be referring to, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

And why do you believe them?

(January 6, 2019 at 1:55 am)Angelina Wrote: . The Bible is a series of important metaphors and morals lessons.

Except when it's not

(January 6, 2019 at 1:55 am)Angelina Wrote: God is not magical, God is all knowing. Abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis and evolution does not explain the beauty of flowers at all.

Explain gods existence. "It has always existed" is not an answer.
Oh and evolution DOES explain the beauty of flowers.

Read up on it its quite interesting.
Bottom line we are not the flowers target audience, its the insects. In fact we only see part of the flowers colours because they are aimed more at what insects san see.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: The only cop out is to throw in the towel and say "god did it" because you don't know something.  Saying it was god actually doesn't mean anything as "god" is reduced to a word that means "unknown" but lets people pretend they have an answer.

(January 6, 2019 at 1:55 am)Angelina Wrote: God is the only plausible option.

No it isn't. In fact the idea that god did it has no explanatory power or evidence. It is a non-answer.

(December 31, 2018 at 9:48 am)unfogged Wrote: Exactly.  The thing is not evidence of the cause of the thing.  The existence of the universe is not evidence for the cause of the universe.  You have to provide evidence for the proposed cause itself.

(January 6, 2019 at 1:55 am)Angelina Wrote: No, the enormity, beauty and complexity is definitely evidence of a cause.

Prove it.