God and religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John E

Way back in this thread I descibed my personal view that any creature who was good at recognising patterns and who also had an inate belief in "luck" would inevitebly invent the concept of God at some stage in it's existence. It's only my personal view but for me, there is much stronger evidence that man invented God, rather than God invented man.

But religion and God are not the same thing. What religion does is that it exploits peoples' belief in God for the purpose of acquiring power and wealth. It keeps hold of that power over people by demanding that the followers of religion never question what they are taught.

---

Yes, religion and God are not the same thing. We are focusing on the subject on the existence of God now. And we are going to look at the things that we know of (except the Bible) in search for an answer to this.

And I love examining things. I believe God exists not because this is what Religion has taught me, but there is much stronger evidence that God created man, and all the other things around us. And we cannot deny that the facts about the earth (in which man through science has discovered) show that it has Design. The snowflake you mentioned is one of the many examples of it. You yourself said a snowflake is "complicated," and that no two snowflakes are alike (this means that the design of the snowflake is never the same, right?). If there's a design there must be a designer.

We are all coders here.. and we know that a complex program did not just make or produced itself on its own without a capable programmer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mehdi62b

but I beleive humans can feel non physical things

---

Oh, so maybe you meant "spiritual" things ?

Che rish - my point about the snowflake is that it is both intricate and symmetrical and yet - (a) nobody is making it, and (b) it clearly isn't following any kind of pattern because no 2 snowflakes are ever the same. Most symmetrical things in nature are designed according to a pattern (often written into DNA). But nature can make very intricate snowflakes without any kind of pattern or any kind of intelligence.

In fact, nature can make most of what it needs without intelligence. Even life, the most complex of all things, can occur spontaneously in the most inhospitable of places. I'm interested to know what is your evidence that God created man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John E

Yes, that's what I meant. Snowflakes are very intricate structures and yet they form naturally by themselves without the need for someone to make them. You're right to say that everything that is made requires a maker - but not everything that exists has to be made. In fact, the vast majority of things that exist in nature are not 'made'. They develop naturally.

---

GOD has created the nature itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John E

But religion and God are not the same thing. What religion does is that it exploits peoples' belief in God for the purpose of acquiring power and wealth. And it keeps hold of that power over people by demanding that the followers of religion never question what they are taught.

---

I don't think I would agree on this. It is man's misconception about the religion itself made them use religion to justify whatever they are doing. Religion (refering to Islam) itself does not make certain some people wealthy and powerful.. while others left to strand.. everyone is equal infront of GOD..

You see, people suicide bombing in the name of Islam, but Islam forbids its believer from suicide and its a great sin.. but people say they are "Syahid" , that is martyred !! cause they fought for their land and religion..!! so who to blame ? people or religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max

Well, for me science is just a prove that human solely relies on their 5 senses, anything beyond that sense is just unreachable for them..

---

And how would you know there is something beyond that senses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xeon

Hey Cilu! Are you the one who deleted My post?

---

Your usually behaviour won't be tolerated here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John

For example, one of the biggest mysteries of the modern age is dark matter. We know it must exist but no matter what we do, we can't find it. Is this dark matter God? Possibly it is though, in my view, that's very unlikely. Is it some substance that we cannot detect with our 5 senses. That's another possibility though again, I'd say it's unlikely. My personal view is that the theory of dark matter is probably wrong and that some other explanation will be found for it.

---

Dark matter looks strange to me. But the fact that we can't detect it right now, it doesn't mean it isn't there. Look at the quarks. We knew they must be there for 30 years, but only 2 years ago he found a physical proof of their existance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cherish

So I guess the topic we should first focus on is: Does God Exist?

---

To answer that question we must first define what God is, including his attributes, characteristics, which unfortunatelly depends on what we know about God from different religions.

I suppose we can say God is an entity that eludes the physical world that we know, not subjected to the laws of physiscs. God is omnipotent, onmipresent, omniscient.

How would you find this attempt of definition.

Are you familiar with the Occam's Rasor Principle? William of Occam was an English philosopher and theologian who used in his writtings the Aristotelian principle that things should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, meaning that plurality should not be posited without necessity. The principle became know as Occam's Rasor. It states that two or more hypotheses being equal the simplest one should be selected.

If we use this principle I think we must reject the theory of a perfect, eternal being, that eludes time and space, that has created the Universe and watches over his creation.

John E, guys... I have to leave the office for now. I'll be back when I get the chance later. Have a good day, y'all! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cilu

Look at the quarks. We knew they must be there for 30 years, but only 2 years ago he found a physical proof of their existance.

---

True - but don't forget that quarks are extremely small and extremely rare events. Dark matter on the other hand, supposedly makes up most of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cilu

And how would you know there is something beyond that senses?

---

When we accept the fact that everything in this world including our own body is just a perception made to us by our senses, then who actually see or hear, who actually feel the heat or cold?? we don't see what we see in the brain. The brain maybe the place the electrical signals go, but its not there taht we see. The brain itself is a perception made by our senses, it doesn't exists.. so to conclude who actually getting all this perception is the being called "Soul"!. Isn't Soul is a prove that there is something beyond our senses? If you don't want to call it a "Soul", what would be the "Will" which perceive all these images??

Who is feeding the soul with those perception?creating the perception? I would say God!

So, to answer what is GOD made of or what is soul made of.. I have no Idea.

This is where I'm getting all this crap..:p

The Secret Beyond Matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Payne

Isn't Soul is a prove that there is something beyond our senses?

---

Possibly - but I don't think it's necessary to go that abstract. There are many things in the physical universe that prove the same thing. For example, ultra violet light is proof that there is something beyond our senses.

John, Ultra Violet Lights is not visible to human eyes, yes, but that's not what I mean when I say "something beyond our senses".. UV is still reachable to our senses, using devices like using UVTelescope or something..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che rish

Oh, so maybe you meant "spiritual" things ?

---

everything which doesn't deal with our 5 physical sences
like: when someone kills himself so that others won't die(its english equvalent?),helping people,or a simple love,and many other things
such things doesn't relate to our 5 physical sences but we feel them,we get sad,we get happy,every things is not a physical thing.
also worshiping the creator is like them in a higher level.

Oh, so now we are directing the discussion towards the soul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by max

so to conclude who actually getting all this perception is the being called "Soul".

---

I'm currious to know how did you get to this conclusion.

You know, God and the soul are just two teories that tries to explain the world. A theory is based on elements known to us at a certain moment of time. As we learn more new theories appear that reject or generalize the old ones. A good theory is one that makes predictions that can be verified. If the prediction can't be verified, or conflict with the actual results, the theory is faulty. Theory never advances by proving anything is actually true, but rather by leading to predictions that conflict with observable data. All we can ever hope to do is to falsify a theory; then we move on to the next one.

So, I'm really curious if someone can make predictions based on the God theoy or Soul theory that can be verified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cilu

Everything is a point of view. At this point I wonder if you all exist or are just the product of my mind

---

That reminds me of

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macbeth

Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, a fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet ....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mehdi62b

thirsty is put within us by the creator

---

So are you saying that without a creator, there could be no thirst? Therefore, by extension, are you saying that the existence of thirst proves that there must be a creator? It sounds like a far fetched theory to me. You could equally argue that the existence of iron proves that there must be blacksmiths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John E

So are you saying that without a creator, there could be no thirst?

---

I think what he's saying is that the need to eat, sleep, drink, and other natural instincts that we have has been "put" or programmed (so to speak) by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cilu

To answer that question we must first define what God is, including his attributes, characteristics, which unfortunatelly depends on what we know about God from different religions.

---

I think, including God's attributes and/or characteristics in defining "God" will be confusing. We only need to define what word God means, and then find out if this God does exist, before finding what his attributes and characteristics are. In this way, we won't be tagging the different beliefs about God of Religions along.

So why don't we focus on the definition of God first? The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) gives the following definition of God: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Discarding characteristics/attributes and other religion-related definition, simply put: God is the Originator of the universe. The Creator of all things.

This is the "God" I am talking of, and whom I believe exists. (I believe, this is also what others are referring to when talking about "God.") This God is the one that created the atoms, particles, elements, etc. and the one who put all physical laws (like nature, gravity, etc) in motion.

But let's put what I believe aside, and examine if there really is a basis for belief in the existence of God. What do the facts show?

If there was no Creator, then life must have started spontaneously by chance. For life to have come about, somehow the right chemicals would have had to come together in the right quantities, under the right temperature and pressure and other controlling factors, and all would have had to be maintained for the correct length of time. Furthermore, for life to have begun and been sustained on earth, these chance events would have had to be repeated thousands of times. But how likely is it for even one such event to take place?

Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10^113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 10^50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle.

On the other hand, by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws. In other words, they have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and they have been able to express this logic and order in simple mathematical terms. “Few scientists can fail to be impressed by the almost unreasonable simplicity and elegance of these laws,” writes a professor of physics, Paul Davies, in the magazine New Scientist.

A most intriguing fact about these laws, however, is that in them there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe, as we know it, to exist. Among these fundamental constants are the unit of electric charge on the proton, the masses of certain fundamental particles, and Newton’s universal constant of gravitation, commonly denoted by the letter G. On this, Professor Davies continues: “Even minute variations in the values of some of them would drastically alter the appearance of the Universe. For example, Freeman Dyson has pointed out that if the force between nucleons (protons and neutrons) were only a few per cent stronger, the Universe would be devoid of hydrogen. Stars like the Sun, not to mention water, could not exist. Life, at least as we know it, would be impossible. Brandon Carter has shown that very much smaller changes in G would turn all stars into blue giants or red dwarfs, with equally dire consequences for life.” Thus, Davies concludes: “In this case it is conceivable that there might be only one possible Universe. If that is so, it is a remarkable thought that our own existence as conscious beings is an inescapable consequence of logic.”


So what can we deduce from all of this?

First of all, if the universe is governed by laws, then there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws. Furthermore, since the laws governing the operation of the universe appear to be made in anticipation of life and conditions favorable to its sustenance, purpose is clearly involved. Design and purpose—these are not characteristics of blind chance; they are precisely what an intelligent Creator would manifest.

Of course, design and purpose are seen not only in the orderly workings of the universe but also in the way living creatures, simple and complex, carry on their daily activities, as well as in the way they interact with one another and with the environment. For example, almost every part of our human body—the brain, the eye, the ear, the hand—shows design so intricate that modern science cannot fully explain it. Then there are the animal and plant worlds. The annual migration of certain birds over thousands of miles of land and sea, the process of photosynthesis in plants, the development of one fertilized egg into a complex organism with millions of differentiated cells with specialized functions—just to give a few examples—are all outstanding evidence of intelligent design.

(For a detailed explanation of how these things prove God's existence, just let me know. But please, one at a time! :D )


To continue... here's the thing:

Some argue, however, that increased knowledge of science has provided explanations for many of these feats. True, science has explained, to a certain extent, many things that were once a mystery.

But a child’s discovery of how a watch works does not prove that the watch was not designed and made by someone. Likewise, our understanding the marvelous ways in which many of the things in the physical world function does not prove that there is no intelligent designer behind them. On the contrary, the more we know about the world around us, the more evidence we have for the existence of an intelligent Creator, God.