The Debate of God.

[9Westy9]

Well the point I was trying to make is that I see the Universe and everything in it as structured and to me implies intelligence, and so I assumed a sort of super consciousness that governs all this,

Makes sense to me. I'm assuming that you're not positive though by the 'assumed' part?

I could ask you why it does not require a governing consciousness?,

You could. I'd just answer with 'I never claimed it didn't. Only that you said it does'.

I do not like to refer this "governing consciousness", as GOD, because the word GOD to me automatic implies a old man in heaven pointing fingers at what I do, or something like that, so I see this Universe as being pervaded by a force that we are yet to understand completely.

A definition I prefer. As a starting point at the very least

What I think many anti-God people here have to get out of there mind is that when the word GOD is said by someone that it does not always imply to the Biblical, Koranic or the superstitious "the man up there", kind of thing, I would go to the extent of saying that "GOD" does not exist, but that does not mean that all concepts of "GOD", are the same and incorrect.

agreed :yes:

And why do we have to be anti-GOD, What i think is because majority who try to justify there disbelief in a GOD are just having a negative reaction to the concept of GOD in the Biblical or Koranic sense, because you are forced to believe in a GOD that hurts people, is jealous, is wrathful and ect.ect., But that is just unfair to people who have a totally opposite view of what "GOD', is.

I'm anti-God when I see that 'God' is harmful. Either to the person holding the belief or the people it affects.

I don't see why faith in something greater then you can be harmful, if it is not harmful faith in the first place then it should not offend anyone.

It's harmful when it goes past the point of opinion or belief. When people think they're completely correct and that their view is superior to others, they tend to try and convince people they're right. That's fine until they try forcing it into government. I think secular humanism and equality should be the root of any government, if not religion aswell.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Tiberius;2788926]Structure can come about without any intelligence at all.
For example, ever wonder why, when you get a box of cornflakes, all the largest ones are at the top and the last ones to come out from the bottom are always the horrible crumb-like ones?
It's because of a sorting process. As the box is shaken, the cornflakes move a little. This opens up gaps between the flakes. Now, there are going to be more little gaps than big gaps (any gap that opens must start as a small gap, but not all will grow to become big gaps), so the little flakes will fall through first. it won't be often that there is a gap large enough for a big flake to fall through. So, the smaller flakes will tend to fall to the bottom of the box, and this is exactly where we find them.
An example of an ordered and structured result that requires NO intervening intelligence to create it!

Well your intelligence has just explained to me how cornflakes reacts to the sorting process, the sorting process was not there from infinity neither was it randomly produced, the sorting process was thought up by some really smart guy at the factory, the cornflakes and the machine that sort it did not randomly work in conjunction with each other, the gaps in the cornflakes are just cause and effects of the main cause the sorter. it all requires some intelligence behind it. And you being an intelligent person could see the results of a structured system. Do you get what im trying to say??

If you assume it must exist and this assumption blinds you to how the universe really works, then I'd say it is harmful.

Well all the Scientific theories about the universe are just that "Theories", and many are assumptions as well, but no single human on this planet can say for 100% that they know how the Universe works, so without knowing my assumptions weather it be wrong or right about how this universe works, you can not say that its harmful, What different are you from those Bible or Koran believers who tell me that my faith and assumptions are "Harmful".

The same kind of thing is responsible for the existence of life. Rather more complex than a shaking box of cornflakes, but the same idea of an undirected cause leading to complex results without the need for a creator. Do you understand how evolution works?

I don't need to understand evolution, it does not effect my personal or daily life, it does not give me any kind of hope or does not show me a better world neither has the evolution theory brought any good to my life, what I need to understand is my spirituality, that's what makes me who I am, so what is the point in understanding evolution.

 

[Prophet]

A bit late to the party. We already came to an agreement. And I do not agree with your argument because I do not believe in evil, and in actuality consider a person's inability to be aware as being due to the fact our mind's ability to manipulate how we perceive reality, and in general referring more to our instinct and not actual thought and logic. Such occurrences are Placebo effect, forer effect, and confirmation bias. Many people are subjected to these. A person who is truly self-aware does not result to these biological programs of our brain. No "god" or "higher power" involved.

My claim here is clear: We perceive moral values because they are real. I've already put forth a theory on why we don't perceive these moral values clearly.

Your claim, however, is not clear. You are now left to answer for our inborn perception of moral values. This is where I expect "scientific" fundamentalism will present itself in the form of irreducible beliefs such as "evolution made morals so we could be civilized".

We, then, come to a part of this moral code known to us as love. Understood correctly, the doctrine of love is actually responsible for the entire moral code. This doctrine says one thing: Be selfless. This moral code is known to sentient creatures great and small.

Evolutionary traits are passed down by survivors in this savage world. Yet, you likely would say that evolution created love. How, exactly, did evolution foster love when those who fully understand and express this love die first willingly? No matter how many bees, ants and people who allow themselves to be culled from the gene pool, somehow, evolution just can't kill this love thing off.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

9Westy9;2789067]Makes sense to me. I'm assuming that you're not positive though by the 'assumed' part?

Id say its my theory.

You could. I'd just answer with 'I never claimed it didn't. Only that you said it does'.

I gave my reply in the previous post, ill re-re post
Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti

"therefore this universe and this existence requires a governing consciousness. To make atoms do what they do and to put laws in place (so to speak) for the correct and organised functions of matter.. resulting in my existence, producing my "self", as i know i cant do this then there is something beyond my experience physically to control all existence".

It's harmful when it goes past the point of opinion or belief. When people think they're completely correct and that their view is superior to others, they tend to try and convince people they're right. That's fine until they try forcing it into government. I think secular humanism and equality should be the root of any government, if not religion aswell.

well some of these things are done by Atheist and Evolutionist as well, why are they any better?, i agree with the secular humanism part.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Daviso452;2788967]Atheism is not anti-religion. Atheists do not believe there is no God. We just don't believe in God. We have a lack of belief. We just go where the evidence takes us. If it leads to a natural explanation, then we will go with that. Does it mean there is no God? Of course not! You cannot prove God does not exist. But you can prove, as Hawking puts it, that "God is unnecessary."

Well i say Hawking is unnecessary when it comes to understanding GOD.

However, you stated that there is a higher power. We are not saying you are wrong; we just want you to back up that claim. We think that if it has no evidence, there is no reason to believe it.

There is no evidence with the hill tribes of the forest of south India that the suburb of Liverpool in London exists, if I tell them they will not have a clue what im talking about.

Anyways, i don't have any proof, just the books I read and the people I meet and live with and their beliefs, the history of my culture and motherland, the 10,000 years of continual faith, the word and belief of my ancestors, the faith that built my nation, the belief that structured my ethical and social understandings, the books that taught me to respect my parents also said that i am not a special thing, that there is more powerful forces in the universe that I need to understand,,,,, I know its pathetic.

 

[9Westy9]

Id say its my theory.

Fine by me :yes:

I gave my reply in the previous post, ill re-re post
Originally Posted by Satyamavejayanti

"therefore this universe and this existence requires a governing consciousness. To make atoms do what they do and to put laws in place (so to speak) for the correct and organised functions of matter.. resulting in my existence, producing my "self", as i know i cant do this then there is something beyond my experience physically to control all existence".

Does this universe require a governing conciousness? Atoms do what they do, but do they need a governing conscious? laws are here but do they need a governing concious? Just because I can't do this doesn't mean another being/ thing did. If I can't explain something then I leave it at that. I don't say that some super being did. Just my view though, you're entitled to yours as much as I am entitled to mine

well some of these things are done by Atheist and Evolutionist as well, why are they any better?, i agree with the secular humanism part.

Clearly they aren't any better.

 

[Daviso452]

My claim here is clear: We perceive moral values because they are real. I've already put forth a theory on why we don't perceive these moral values clearly.

Your claim, however, is not clear. You are now left to answer for our inborn perception of moral values. This is where I expect "scientific" fundamentalism will present itself in the form of irreducible beliefs such as "evolution made morals so we could be civilized".

We, then, come to a part of this moral code known to us as love. Understood correctly, the doctrine of love is actually responsible for the entire moral code. This doctrine says one thing: Be selfless. This moral code is known to sentient creatures great and small.

Evolutionary traits are passed down by survivors in this savage world. Yet, you likely would say that evolution created love. How, exactly, did evolution foster love when those who fully understand and express this love die first willingly? No matter how many bees, ants and people who allow themselves to be culled from the gene pool, somehow, evolution just can't kill this love thing off.

I have no claim. You're the one with a claim.

FYI, I don't believe morals are real. Or at least not objective. I consider them artificial constructs created by humanity as a means of living in orderly boundaries and happiness. But these are both subjective, and so morals themselves are subjective.

Why would evolution remove love? Love usually leads to happiness, which triggers the reward center of our brain. It also provides a system where a child can survive efficiently. Sure, nowadays this is more rare. But back then, things weren't as complicated, and love had a more survival-like quality to it, and not just emotional like it is today.

 

[Daviso452]

Well your intelligence has just explained to me how cornflakes reacts to the sorting process, the sorting process was not there from infinity neither was it randomly produced, the sorting process was thought up by some really smart guy at the factory, the cornflakes and the machine that sort it did not randomly work in conjunction with each other, the gaps in the cornflakes are just cause and effects of the main cause the sorter. it all requires some intelligence behind it. And you being an intelligent person could see the results of a structured system. Do you get what im trying to say??

I don't think you understood what he was saying. The factory workers did not cause this to happen; it is the mere nature of the flakes themselves. No intervention of intelligence. Just nature having order.

Well all the Scientific theories about the universe are just that "Theories", and many are assumptions as well, but no single human on this planet can say for 100% that they know how the Universe works, so without knowing my assumptions weather it be wrong or right about how this universe works, you can not say that its harmful, What different are you from those Bible or Koran believers who tell me that my faith and assumptions are "Harmful".

"Theories" are the 2nd most farthest thing you can get from assumptions. The 1st is scientific law. Theories have every bit of evidence required to be considered true; there is just one small observation missing. For the big bang, it's the event itself. For evolution, its the billions of years of life being on earth. For gravity, its the actual "thing" that causes it.

I don't need to understand evolution, it does not effect my personal or daily life, it does not give me any kind of hope or does not show me a better world neither has the evolution theory brought any good to my life, what I need to understand is my spirituality, that's what makes me who I am, so what is the point in understanding evolution.

How do you know you are what your spirituality is? How do you know that "spirituality" even exists? I don't consider myself, or most atheists, having spirituality, but we still are who we are. There is little evidence we are more than just what our bodies hold. There is much evidence, however, that we are.

 

[Tiberius]

Well your intelligence has just explained to me how cornflakes reacts to the sorting process, the sorting process was not there from infinity neither was it randomly produced, the sorting process was thought up by some really smart guy at the factory, the cornflakes and the machine that sort it did not randomly work in conjunction with each other, the gaps in the cornflakes are just cause and effects of the main cause the sorter. it all requires some intelligence behind it. And you being an intelligent person could see the results of a structured system. Do you get what im trying to say??

What are you talking about? This is not some process that was invented. It is the way things work. There is no human intervention behind it.

The process requires no mechanism to work - it just requires a mixture of different sized components and vibrations. This can happen in your cornflake box or it can happen in rocks during an earthquake. It was not thought up by anyone!

Well all the Scientific theories about the universe are just that "Theories", and many are assumptions as well, but no single human on this planet can say for 100% that they know how the Universe works, so without knowing my assumptions weather it be wrong or right about how this universe works, you can not say that its harmful, What different are you from those Bible or Koran believers who tell me that my faith and assumptions are "Harmful".

Long sentence makes brain bleed.

And why do you seem to think that a scientific theory is just something that a bunch of guys in lab coats thought up after being out all night drinking?

You seem to have very little knowledge about science, and you seem to be incapable of recognising an analogy.

I don't need to understand evolution, it does not effect my personal or daily life, it does not give me any kind of hope or does not show me a better world neither has the evolution theory brought any good to my life, what I need to understand is my spirituality, that's what makes me who I am, so what is the point in understanding evolution.[/QUOTE]

 

[Prophet]

Let's say Bob and Tom are family members. Bob loves Tom. Tom merely acts as if he loves Bob to reap the benefits of love selfishly.

Bob would willingly die for Tom. Tom would not do the same for Bob. In a dangerous world, does evolution favor actual love or hypocrisy? Evolution clearly favors the being who will act selfishly.

How does our chief ideal, love, which values selflessness above all things come to be from a system which values selfishness?

 

[Daviso452]

Let's say Bob and Tom are family members. Bob loves Tom. Tom merely acts as if he loves Bob to reap the benefits of love selfishly.

Bob would willingly die for Tom. Tom would not do the same for Bob. In a dangerous world, does evolution favor actual love or hypocrisy? Evolution clearly favors the being who will act selfishly.

How does our chief ideal, love, which values selflessness above all things come to be from a system which values selfishness?

We as humans have deviated from most animals in the sense that we rely more on emotion and intelligence than other animals. Our emotions are much stronger. In some cases, it is extreme. I do, however, feel selfishness plays a role in this.

The role selfishness was to hold on to what you needed to survive. As survival became easier, the feeling of selfishness has grasped onto other things. It has grasped on to what we love. We want to preserve what we love, and in some cases, some would rather give their life for what they love than let it disappear. But again, your example is an extreme and is very rare.

But I see what you are saying. But consider the fact that we don't really need to change how our brain works, seeing as though we rule the whole planet.

 

[Tiberius]

Let's say Bob and Tom are family members. Bob loves Tom. Tom merely acts as if he loves Bob to reap the benefits of love selfishly.

Bob would willingly die for Tom. Tom would not do the same for Bob. In a dangerous world, does evolution favor actual love or hypocrisy? Evolution clearly favors the being who will act selfishly.

How does our chief ideal, love, which values selflessness above all things come to be from a system which values selfishness?

That's a rather extreme case, and I think you are using it to intentionally distort what is real in order to make your point.

What if it was something less than death? Let's say it is giving someone $1000?

 

[Prophet]

We as humans have deviated from most animals in the sense that we rely more on emotion and intelligence than other animals. Our emotions are much stronger. In some cases, it is extreme. I do, however, feel selfishness plays a role in this.

The role selfishness was to hold on to what you needed to survive. As survival became easier, the feeling of selfishness has grasped onto other things. It has grasped on to what we love. We want to preserve what we love, and in some cases, some would rather give their life for what they love than let it disappear. But again, your example is an extreme and is very rare.

But I see what you are saying. But consider the fact that we don't really need to change how our brain works, seeing as though we rule the whole planet.

I do not think that I fully understand the bridge you are building from emotion and intelligence to love and morality. My best understanding is that you agree with me that evolution must work in selfish means, but somehow, at some arbitrary requisite amount of intelligence,survival skill, and general domination of the planet, "evolution" (of the human species) decides that survival is no longer a pressing concern and turns its goals upside down to focus on helping us to work together better, eventually cultivating the ideal of love. I find your personified concept of evolution similar to fundamentalist religious concepts of God, hidden irrational will and all.

 

[Prophet]

That's a rather extreme case, and I think you are using it to intentionally distort what is real in order to make your point.

What if it was something less than death? Let's say it is giving someone $1000?

Thought experiments tend to be extreme cases. To figure out what is real, you must address all situations big and small, mundane and extreme.

 

[Daviso452]

I do not think that I fully understand the bridge you are building from emotion and intelligence to love and morality. My best understanding is that you agree with me that evolution must work in selfish means, but somehow, at some arbitrary requisite amount of intelligence,survival skill, and general domination of the planet, "evolution" (of the human species) decides that survival is no longer a pressing concern and turns its goals upside down to focus on helping us to work together better, eventually cultivating the ideal of love. I find your personified concept of evolution similar to fundamentalist religious concepts of God, hidden irrational will and all.

Love assisted in our survival. But when love no longer became necessary for our survival, it turned into the love we know today, which has become much more extreme because our minds focus on emotions more than they did thousands, or even millions, of years ago.

 

[Daviso452]

Thought experiments tend to be extreme cases. To figure out what is real, you must address all situations big and small, mundane and extreme.

Yes, the extreme must be dealt with, and it has. It is a situation where the hormones and chemicals in your body have become unbalanced, and have deviated the person from the normal feelings and emotions they are supposed to experience.

 

[Prophet]

Yes, the extreme must be dealt with, and it has. It is a situation where the hormones and chemicals in your body have become unbalanced, and have deviated the person from the normal feelings and emotions they are supposed to experience.

I see. You seem to frame self-sacrificial love as an insane behavior caused by a poor balance of chemicals in a physical organ and chain that with the great complexity of the human mind.

Self-sacrificial love is not unique to intelligent beings. Ants, bees, and many species of mammal have run headlong into annihilation to protect others. What chemical imbalance is occurring in these noble beings in your opinion?

 

[Daviso452]

I see. You seem to frame self-sacrificial love as an insane behavior caused by a poor balance of chemicals in a physical organ and chain that with the great complexity of the human mind.

Self-sacrificial love is not unique to intelligent beings. Ants, bees, and many species of mammal have run headlong into annihilation to protect others. What chemical imbalance is occurring in these noble beings in your opinion?

Different sort of situation. In these situations it's a survival instinct to keep the species alive. A male protects the heard. A female protects her young. But yes, they do grow emotional attachments.

Perhaps I was thinking of a more extreme scenario than you were referring to. Normal people can and have sacrificed themselves for others. I was thinking of a more Romeo & Juliet type deal. But yeah, its just survival instinct.

 

[Bismillah]

The Qur'an is an appeal to the existence of God. Each verse in the Qur'an is called an ayat or "sign" and the Qur'an mentions, numerous times, to reflect on the signs given to us by Allah.

 

[Prophet]

I can't do this with you for pages and pages like apophenia. I will only say things once for people who don't want to understand.