U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2010, 06:45 PM
 
240 posts, read 336,677 times
Reputation: 96

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
You're wrong that "respect" was desperation in the face of your argument (what argument?). You're wrong that I was simply saying "stop disrespecting my beliefs." Total hogwash. A full-out argument is fine with me. But somehow in your mind (as evidenced in your above comments) you've connected "respect" with cowardice, with failing to stand up against injustice and meaningless violence (which have nothing to do with what we're talking about). I'm beginning to wonder if you can have any pleasant interactions with anyone you disagree with.
You are the one who implied that people with religious faith were somehow more courageous than people who were without religious faith, i.e. those without religious faith were effectively cowards. You can't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing! And I don't normally talk with people of strong fundamentalist religious faiths; you don't get anywhere except comments like "you need to go to church", "you need to accept Jesus into your heart", "you are going to hell", and varying looks of shock, horror, and disgust. You started by calling atheists/agnostics cowards and you are expecting "pleasant interactions"; are you kidding me? Saying people of faith (religious faith) are courageous without qualifying it, i.e. limiting it to only certain religious people, is calling all atheists/agnostics cowards. What Martin Luther King did was courageous. What Mahatma Gandhi did was courageous. But saying because a religious person's faith might be wrong makes them courageous doesn't hold. Everyone has beliefs that might be wrong; that doesn't make them courageous.

I was never really comfortable with theists, mainly Christian theists, even when I was extremely religious myself. Fact of the matter, few people are actually courageous and most just go along the crowd; and I for the most part am one of them. Even being honest with oneself is difficult for most people, much less being honest with others. It is just all one big game and we all just play our role. If people can't approach anything remotely resembling honesty on a semi-anonymous forum, then I don't think truth has any hope. All I have said is that religious people have done a lot of cowardly things, as have most people, and saying all people of faith are courageous doesn't hold. I'm not sure if you are purposefully distorting what I said or you are actually confused; either way I think it should be clear enough for anyone to understand now what I mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
you've connected "respect" with cowardice
I haven't a clue on how you came to this conclusion. What I have connected with cowardice is doing that which is morally wrong, like killing people, lying, and generally anything that causes another person suffering and in general not facing the truth(which is similar to lying).

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
You probably didn't mean to affirm metaphysical naturalism, but what you said is part of the definition of metaphysical naturalism.
Explain how exactly I am affirming metaphysical naturalism? If the supernatural world can't have an effect on the natural world, us being in the natural world, how could we know anything at all about the supernatural world, how could religion have any legitimacy? We could have experiences while in a supernatural world, then come back into consciousness to the natural world and not remember it. But if we don't remember our supernatural experiences while in the natural world, then there wouldn't be a casual link between the two, but then again noone while in the natural world could claim and be correct to have experienced something supernatural.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
And your claim that "if religion holds any weight, your 1 and 2 can't be true" needs more explanation.
I thought it was pretty clear. Maybe you could ask a more specific question? If Jesus can have a conversation with God, and then convey the fact he had a conversation with God while in the natural world, then you have a casual link between two different worlds. If Jesus purely imagined, not realizing he was imagining, his conversation with God in his brain, then he was deluded. And if he didn't even imagine the conversation, it was a lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
I'm not sure you're tracking the issues involved. If the universe "just is," then there is no answer, no possible answer, to why there is something rather than nothing. The universe would be a brute, unintelligible fact. There would be nothing to explain WHY, since the universe could have NOT existed. Why then does it exist? Very weird. How can all of existence just exist for absolutely no reason? Extremely odd, if not impossible. The only thing that could provide an explanation, a reason, for the existence of the universe, would be a necessary being, that is, a being that cannot not exist, a being that is not only eternal, but it is metaphysically impossible for it to not exist. Only such a being could explain why there is something rather than nothing.
If the universe "just is", then noone ever had any conversations with God, and we should be looking at the existence of the universe from a more philosophical/logical perspective than a religious explanation based on a religious experience. I don't really understand your "necessary being" business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
Right. I don't think we will ever KNOW if there is an answer to "why," or what the reason is. But the theistic model provides that there is a reason, while the atheistic model rules it out as impossible.
In the "theistic model" there might not actually be a reason; you can't claim "there is a reason", without actually knowing what that reason is. The "theistic model" may have more allowances for a reason, but it doesn't necessarily require one. And the "atheistic model" doesn't entirely rule out a reason for the universe. You are incorrect in that. The reason for the existence of the universe doesn't have to come from an absolute deity!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
"Wrong" is a word that can be taken in a multitude of ways. As you point out, it can be false, it can be morally evil, or morally bad. It can mean unpleasant, or not in accordance with reality. But these are all different claims, and therefore they all require different arguments.
I meant mainly in the sense of not being "in accordance with reality", but those other meanings I mentioned hold to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-28-2010, 12:08 AM
 
366 posts, read 486,502 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustNobody View Post
You are the one who implied that people with religious faith were somehow more courageous than people who were without religious faith, i.e. those without religious faith were effectively cowards. You can't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing! And I don't normally talk with people of strong fundamentalist religious faiths; you don't get anywhere except comments like "you need to go to church", "you need to accept Jesus into your heart", "you are going to hell", and varying looks of shock, horror, and disgust. You started by calling atheists/agnostics cowards and you are expecting "pleasant interactions"; are you kidding me? Saying people of faith (religious faith) are courageous without qualifying it, i.e. limiting it to only certain religious people, is calling all atheists/agnostics cowards. What Martin Luther King did was courageous. What Mahatma Gandhi did was courageous. But saying because a religious person's faith might be wrong makes them courageous doesn't hold. Everyone has beliefs that might be wrong; that doesn't make them courageous.

I was never really comfortable with theists, mainly Christian theists, even when I was extremely religious myself. Fact of the matter, few people are actually courageous and most just go along the crowd; and I for the most part am one of them. Even being honest with oneself is difficult for most people, much less being honest with others. It is just all one big game and we all just play our role. If people can't approach anything remotely resembling honesty on a semi-anonymous forum, then I don't think truth has any hope. All I have said is that religious people have done a lot of cowardly things, as have most people, and saying all people of faith are courageous doesn't hold. I'm not sure if you are purposefully distorting what I said or you are actually confused; either way I think it should be clear enough for anyone to understand now what I mean.
I think I'm done wasting my time on this conversation. You remind me of a student answering an essay question, going on, but not having sufficiently read the question. It's too bad. There are quite a few interesting philosophical issues we could further explore. But even a cursory glance at my posts will show that I did NOT say atheists/agnostics are cowards--I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Your comments here are riddled with misunderstandings, and I just don't have the patience any more to correct what you will simply misconstrue. If only you bothered to read carefully, or at least raised thoughtful questions. But you are so convinced that you are right and you have something to teach the rest of us, that you can't see (and can't admit) when you don't understand. You wrote to GldnRule, that you've
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustNobody View Post
...considered everything within the limits of any human.
That's a joke, right? You fail repeatedly to admit when you were wrong, and press on as though I simply misunderstood you (case in point: your claim that trust is by definition belief; that faith is by definition belief.) I was hoping for more. If you want to continue, DM me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 12:10 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,639 posts, read 24,067,346 times
Reputation: 11273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham222 View Post
Hi All

First time post. I'm open minded and my philosophy is "above all else, common sense should prevail", I am on a personal journey to find answers. Physicists tell us that energy cannot be created only transferred. So let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing?
How do you know it doesn't?

You have no idea, just like everyone else.
You choose to have a creation myth to answer your questions, just like prehistoric people.
Some of us choose to live our lives and not worry about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 03:02 AM
 
240 posts, read 336,677 times
Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
I think I'm done wasting my time on this conversation. You remind me of a student answering an essay question, going on, but not having sufficiently read the question. It's too bad. There are quite a few interesting philosophical issues we could further explore.
I'm sorry you think so little of of me. I had a higher opinion of you, but such an insult directed at me disappoints me. And considering your obvious little opinion you have of me, any conversation between us can't go anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
But even a cursory glance at my posts will show that I did NOT say atheists/agnostics are cowards--I SAID THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
Yea after I mentioned the fact that you were implying by calling people of faith courageous, you were calling people without faith cowards. And yet you continued to state that having faith was more courageous than not having faith. I don't understand how you could possibly say people of faith are more courageous, and then because I called you on it, you said atheist/agnostics are courageous as well. For me that creates cognitive dissonance. I just can't accept both(person of faith being more courageous and atheist/agnostic being courageous as well) being true at once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
Your comments here are riddled with misunderstandings,
I think the same about you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
and I just don't have the patience any more to correct what you will simply misconstrue. If only you bothered to read carefully, or at least raised thoughtful questions.
These have been my sentiments about you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
But you are so convinced that you are right and you have something to teach the rest of us, that you can't see (and can't admit) when you don't understand.
You come off as trying to play mind games. Honestly I don't think I could teach you anything. Our conversations don't ever seem to go anywhere, anyways. It feels completely pointless. I think most of the people who comment on here think they "have something to teach the rest of us". But for the most part people just seem to talk right past each other. You are misunderstanding me if you think I am "so convinced" I am "right". I am very skeptical about everything including my own beliefs. You really seem to dwell over the strangest things as if you are purposefully trying to provoke a response. From my perspective you create these complex tangled arguments whose sole purpose is to confuse the issue so you can prove something true when it is clearly false. It is like a person who tries to argue that war is the way to peace.

And also as far as your "teach" comment; I was merely having a discussion, but obviously I was incorrect on that.

There is something I don't understand and that being whether you and GLdnRule are trolling me or not; because if you aren't there is a very large disconnect between how you see the world and how I see the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
You wrote to GldnRule, that you've That's a joke, right? You fail repeatedly to admit when you were wrong, and press on as though I simply misunderstood you (case in point: your claim that trust is by definition belief; that faith is by definition belief.) I was hoping for more. If you want to continue, DM me.
I figured you would comment about that response, but you should understand I get frustrated with some of the ridiculous nearly endless ohh, you haven't considered this, and this, and this, and so on, acting like I know nothing about religion or about people. I took GldnRule's comments as belittling me, so I responded accordingly. As far as that GldnRule comment, take it within the context within which it was written. I've looked at numerous viewpoints. He was referring to "man is much more an emotional creature than he is a logical creature". I was merely referring to the fact I have seen such statements before and that I have considered numerous viewpoints or ways of looking at things and that I am not some ignorant heathen. You nitpick over every little thing.

I said trust was believing, not belief.

How is faith not a kind of belief? Why are people of faith called believers then?

Riverside Webster's II New College Dictionary:
faith n comes from latin fidere, to trust. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing. 2. Belief not based on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing: ALLEGIANCE 4.a. Belief and trust in God b. Religious conviction 5. A system of religious beliefs 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I'm confused how I am misunderstanding the definition of the word faith? The link between faith and trust has diverged over the past few hundred years, but I will state them all for clarity's sake.

trust from traust, meaning confidence n. 1 Total confidence in the integrity, ability and good character of another. 2. One in whom confidence is placed. 3. Custody:care 4. Something committed into the care of another :CHARGE 5. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence place in one 6. Reliance on something in the future: HOPE 7. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future: CREDIT 8. a A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another, and his or her obligation with respect to the property and the beneficiary c. The property so held 9. a combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling the prices throughout a business or industry . vi 1. to depend: rely 2. To expect with assurance: ASSUME 3. To believe 4. To place in the care of another:ENTRUST 5. To rely or depend on confidently 6. To extend credit to

First few of these definitions of trust have anything to do with the religion. Secondly the two words, faith and trust, are for the most part not related anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Wink Evidence.

Good come-back post, JN. It's obvious that your "friend in logic" here, Matrix, is either:

1) laboring under Christianity's necessary delusions, and isn't aware of them, or...

2) he's purposefully guiding the argument with his own assumptions. And coincidentally trying to discredit your ideas with insults.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix View Post
Your comments here are riddled with misunderstandings, and I just don't have the patience any more to correct what you will simply misconstrue.

If only you bothered to read carefully, or at least raised thoughtful questions. But you are so convinced that you are right and you have something to teach the rest of us, that you can't see (and can't admit) when you don't understand.

I was hoping for more. If you want to continue, DM me.
At his most egregious, Matrix insists that there has to be a reason for what we see around us. That elsewise, it's all just some sort of "brute chance" thing. So what if it is? If that is the case, Matrix, who cares? Why does there HAVE TO BE a specific reason for anything? And what, in your un-humble opinion, would be that reason? God was bored? He wanted to watch us sin? We're his sort of tropical fish tank experiment? A being with such impossible powers and this is all He could come up with? To make us endlessly argue and gaze into our fuzzy navels?

Why oh why?

What's the reason for some child's untimely and innocent death on this planet? Don't give me that "God has called him or her to His bosom" stuff. No sale on that tired escape from reality.

If you need some all-encompassing reason, then go ahead; believe all the fantasies you wish, M. Some of us don't feel that anguished necessity however, and yet, oddly and implausibly, we're also at complete peace. Perhaps more so than the always anguished Christians.

Perhaps that's because, deep down in their hearts, Christians are at least a little suspicious that Christianity may well be nothing but a big power-mongering ruse.
____________________________

Next:

Graham222 said, innocently:
Quote:
"Physicists tell us that energy cannot be created only transferred. So let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
How do you know it doesn't?

You have no idea, just like everyone else. You choose to have a creation myth to answer your questions, just like prehistoric people.
Some of us choose to live our lives and not worry about it.
Additionally, cheilgirl, I'd ask Graham222: how is it that you choose to selectively quote "physicists" as the basis for your argument? Scientists who Christians always accuse of being blinded by their own science? Are we going to uniformly apply logic to all our religious discussions? To, say, Noah's Ark and co-existing dinosaurs and why Adam doesn't have one less rib on one side? Or are we going to selectively apply it's rigors?

Just let me know which it's to be. I like to know the ground rules.

Astrophysicists, at this point, have only predictions and several hypotheses to guide their thinking. They have not absolutely concluded anything. They just choose to not want to lay down and buy into a completely implausible, illogical, irrational, ambiguous mythology that also lacks any supporting evidence. That would hardly the stuff of good science.

And, of course, if you were to truly read and study the latest ideas on astrophysics so that you'd be in a position of understanding both sides of a debate, you'd see that many of the outcomes their ideas predict are, lo and behold, accurate and observable in nature, especially with some of the newest techniques and equipment.

Predictions coming true are, in themselves, pretty strong evidence, yes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 12:57 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
Default In that case...You need a "God"

Back on topic.
How can something come from nothing?---Relative to physical matter, setting aside how it got "organized"...On the premise it is a given, "NOTHING" (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) not even a single atom, existed "in the beggining"...the ONLY way you are going to get ANYTHING at all, you need...what man would consider in the limits of his comprehension...a "miracle". This goes well with a mystical force that has no material structure what-so-ever as we know it, that "always was", creating the "something"...not "from the nothing" (because you can't "use" nothing to create something), but just creating so there is something instead of nothing. In this logical, singularly plausible, though incomprehensible (within human comprehensive ability) concept, it guarantees some kind of "God" force, having to have "always existed", that started everything off. What else could there have been, if not a "force" such as that, if it all started from NOTHING?

I have FAITH that is the real deal. And furthermore, I intuitively BELIEVE that "force" still acts upon what "it" created. I further intuitively BELIEVE that parts the book titled "The Bible" gives us a metaphorical overview of said "initial creation".
All the best to all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 01:48 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,912 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Back on topic.
How can something come from nothing?---Relative to physical matter, setting aside how it got "organized"...
Fun science. The strong force is believed to violate the law of parity at high energies (you know, the entire Big Bang level). When you say "organized," I assume you're talking about why we have matter instead of anti-matter.

Quote:
On the premise it is a given, "NOTHING" (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) not even a single atom, existed "in the beggining"...
The thermodynamic law states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. A singularity in some kind of state of energy or matter is not "nothing." The BB theory actually never states that "something" came from "nothing," merely a change in the state of energy.

Quote:
the ONLY way you are going to get ANYTHING at all, you need...what man would consider in the limits of his comprehension...a "miracle". This goes well with a mystical force that has no material structure what-so-ever as we know it, that "always was", creating the "something"...not "from the nothing" (because you can't "use" nothing to create something), but just creating so there is something instead of nothing. In this logical, singularly plausible, though incomprehensible (within human comprehensive ability) concept, it guarantees some kind of "God" force, having to have "always existed", that started everything off. What else could there have been, if not a "force" such as that, if it all started from NOTHING?
Aside from no-one claiming anything came from nothing (except those silly Christians and their God creating ex nihilo.

Watch this.

1Everything needs a cause.
2Cause is movement.
3Therefore everything needs movement.
4We can logical deduce the cause of everything back until the need for a "first cause."
5If everything requires a cause (movement), then necessarily, there was always movement.
QED no "creator being."

Quote:
I have FAITH that is the real deal. And furthermore, I intuitively BELIEVE that "force" still acts upon what "it" created. I further intuitively BELIEVE that parts the book titled "The Bible" gives us a metaphorical overview of said "initial creation".
All the best to all.
Non-sequitur. The supposed need for a originator in no way translates to that hackery of a collection of fables. That is just poor logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 10:16 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 3,860,887 times
Reputation: 654
You have not demonstrated the lack of need for a "creating force". Your argument requires #2 to be true. I don't know if I hold on that. Prove that "Cause = Movement". Also how "movement" could create from nothing. And by nothing I mean NOTHING. No matter, no anti-matter, no energy, nothing...Nothing NOTHING, NOOOOOOOTHING.

I never "claimed" something came from nothing. That was the OPs question ..."How can something come from nothing?"

Not non-sequitur...I stated my BELIEF...that doesn't have to follow or make sense in any way...it's just my belief. I hold to my statement that creating something from nothing requires what is commonly called "a miracle"...the Bible is known as containing the #1 account of said creation miracle, and I'm sticking by it. But I'll tell ya what--When "The Book of Konration Theory of How the Universe Came to Be" is as prolifically published, and is as widely accepted and embraced, for as long a time, I'll give it props over the "collection of fables book".
All the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 10:24 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,912 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You have not demonstrated the lack of need for a "creating force". Your argument requires #2 to be true. I don't know if I hold on that. Prove that "Cause = Movement".
Can you show that cause != movement? Every example of a cause is some kind of movement.


Quote:
Also how "movement" could create from nothing. And by nothing I mean NOTHING. No matter, no anti-matter, no energy, nothing...Nothing NOTHING, NOOOOOOOTHING.
If something cannot come from nothing, logically something has always existed, in some state or another. You don't need a creator to create if there was always something and movement. The universe is plausible a closed system, constantly cycling between expansions and contractions. The universe as we know it has a stupendously low entropy, it's nearly unmeasurable (if measurable at all).

Quote:
I never "claimed" something came from nothing. That was the OPs question ..."How can something come from nothing?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Relative to physical matter, setting aside how it got "organized"...On the premise it is a given, "NOTHING" (and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) not even a single atom, existed "in the beggining"...the ONLY way you are going to get ANYTHING at all, you need...what man would consider in the limits of his comprehension...a "miracle".
If something always was, well then you don't need your miracle. In order for you to have your miracle, you need something to come from nothing.

Quote:
Not non-sequitur...I stated my BELIEF...that doesn't have to follow or make sense in any way...it's just my belief. I hold to my statement that creating something from nothing requires what is commonly called "a miracle"...the Bible is known as containing the #1 account of said creation miracle, and I'm sticking by it. But I'll tell ya what--When "The Book of Konration Theory of How the Universe Came to Be" is as prolifically published, and is as widely accepted and embraced, for as long a time, I'll give it props over the "collection of fables book".
All the best.
Your belief is a non-sequitur.

And the Bible has been around for some 1950+ years. You wouldn't be alive by the time my book has reached the condition "for as long a time." You're giving me an unreachable goal, and that is just dishonest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2010, 11:09 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 12,702,149 times
Reputation: 3975
Let's start at the beginning...How can something come from nothing?


Interesting, why would you assume that there was ever a "nothing" Physics teaches us, one of the maxims is, "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can be altered"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top