What RELIGION are you?

[lurknomore]

We didn't know bacteria existed so we used religion as an explanation for sickness. Religion was used to fill the gaps that science couldn't explain.

Why should we have humility toward ancient fairy tales? There may also be unicorns and fairies in the garden, but we don't give them the "benefit of the doubt." There is no reason to believe that a god exists, just as there is no reason to believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun.

We on this planet represent a microscopic piece of the universe as a whole. I think it's pretty arrogant to think that man has, or is even able, to discern everything. I'm not arguing for the existence of a particular god, but am just pointing out that if there is a higher being that created this universe, or at the very least set the evolutionary process in motion, then this being is probably of a far higher intelligence than humans, or any other being existing. It would then stand to reason then that perhaps humans lack the capability to prove this beings existence, and it is in fact futile to try. If this being exists, he/she is probably laughing at scientists who are trying to prove/disprove his/her existence, or who dismiss the idea entirely because they are unable to discern any "evidence" with their relatively meager capabilities.

And while you may see religion as "comforting" for people, because they can believe in an afterlife, greater purpose, etc., I think you equally find comfort in your "science," because perhaps everything you believe in can be "proven" with "evidence," which would be comforting for a person with a rational mind such as yourself. I personally think this is narrow-minded and somewhat lazy, as maybe you (or someone like you) just sit back and wait for science to tell you what to believe, even though some of these things may later be proven false, and even if they aren't, there is likely a magnitude of things still waiting to be discovered, and are likely beyond our own human capabilities to understand and discern. This does not make these things any less real, or make current ideas that end up being wrong "right."

I'm not expecting you (or anyone else- I'm not trying to just direct this specifically to you) to fully believe in the existence of a god or higher being, but to perhaps adopt an open mind that there are probably things out there that cannot be discernable only through science- i.e. science may not have all the answers. I'm not saying people should blindly believe in any religion, but neither should people blindly take science as the ultimate authority.

 

[SickJoke]

We on this planet represent a microscopic piece of the universe as a whole. I think it's pretty arrogant to think that man has, or is even able, to discern everything. I'm not arguing for the existence of a particular god, but am just pointing out that if there is a higher being that created this universe, or at the very least set the evolutionary process in motion, then this being is probably of a far higher intelligence than humans, or any other being existing. It would then stand to reason then that perhaps humans lack the capability to prove this beings existence, and it is in fact futile to try. If this being exists, he/she is probably laughing at scientists who are trying to prove/disprove his/her existence, or who dismiss the idea entirely because they are unable to discern any "evidence" with their relatively meager capabilities.

Scientists don't claim to know everything. They remain humble; they don't make a claim without evidence to support it. On the contrary, religion is arrogant. Religion makes claims without any evidence.

There is no need for a higher being to create the universe or set the process in motion. Occam's razor: "The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory" -Wikipedia. The Big Bang Theory is self sufficient. Adding a god into the equation only serves to make the situation more complicated. Complex things start from simple beginnings. Tossing a complex intelligence into the equation BEFORE the Big Bang is counterproductive.

And if there was some mysterious diety that started the Big Bang (as I say, this is an absurd proposition), you said it yourself: it's arrogant for humans to think this diety has a special preference for humans.

And while you may see religion as "comforting" for people, because they can believe in an afterlife, greater purpose, etc., I think you equally find comfort in your "science," because perhaps everything you believe in can be "proven" with "evidence," which would be comforting for a person with a rational mind such as yourself. I personally think this is narrow-minded and somewhat lazy, as maybe you (or someone like you) just sit back and wait for science to tell you what to believe, even though some of these things may later be proven false, and even if they aren't, there is likely a magnitude of things still waiting to be discovered, and are likely beyond our own human capabilities to understand and discern. This does not make these things any less real, or make current ideas that end up being wrong "right."

I'm not expecting you (or anyone else- I'm not trying to just direct this specifically to you) to fully believe in the existence of a god or higher being, but to perhaps adopt an open mind that there are probably things out there that cannot be discernable only through science- i.e. science may not have all the answers. I'm not saying people should blindly believe in any religion, but neither should people blindly take science as the ultimate authority.

To say that science is "narrow-minded and lazy" is just absurd. I do research for myself, and my mind remains open to new evidence; that's how science works. Science is reliable: every proposed hypothesis is analyzed and scrutinized by a worldwide organization of the most intelligent scientists on this planet. Without science we would have no electricity, no medicine, no knowledge of the cosmos, no technology whatsoever. To question science is to question rational, intelligent thought.

There are things in this universe beyond current human capabilities. However, it's extremely narrow-minded to address these issues that we can't explain by simply saying "god did it." There is no reason, no need for a god. Humanity has been using the "god did it" excuse for thousands of years: why does it rain? "God did it." Why do the seasons change? "God did it." Where did we come from? "God did it." Now we have scientific explanations for these phenomenon, and the "god did it" excuse is constantly losing ground; it's backed into a corner. Now creationists say: what started the universe? "God did it." No. God didn't do it. It's time to stop using that ancient excuse.

 

[jackinwa]

Two words: straw man. You're constructing a false concept and then deriding your own distorted idea. No one claims God is a grumpy man in the sky.

No one has to say such things. The Bible is one of the first and most violent sexist, violent and superstitious books ever written. To claim it is the word of God is to claim that he is sexist, violent and preys on superstitious people because they are who believe him.

Try again.

-Jack in WA

 

[jackinwa]

We didn't know bacteria existed so we used religion as an explanation for sickness. Religion was used to fill the gaps that science couldn't explain.

Why should we have humility toward ancient fairy tales? There may also be unicorns and fairies in the garden, but we don't give them the "benefit of the doubt." There is no reason to believe that a god exists, just as there is no reason to believe there's a teapot orbiting the sun.

In lieu of this discussion that has picked up again, I find it ironic that I had watched Contact earlier in the week and soon afterward was reading what Wikipedia said about it. Perhaps others should take a similar path.

Contact (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, I got something interesting from the movie; if you don't tread on me, I will not tread on you. If you respect me, in fact, I might come to you. The scientist never went to the churches; the religious ones actually went beyond their way to announce themselves in theatrics and, ultimately, killing others in an attempt to contact another world.

In the end, the scientist befriends a religious philosopher, acknowledging at least to herself that there is something out there, if not God, then certainly there is life on other planets, so developed that it would seem that extra-terrestrial life was God. Well, don't take my word for it. Watch the movie.

At any rate, as from the movie and on this discussion, why must those who believe in religion also try to convert people of "no faith" and if that fails, kill people who seek to move away from the bondage that religion has given us for thousands of years?

When ever is a life in bondage a good thing?

Just curious.

-Jack in WA

 

[Rise Against]

Here is my take on religion... I think that everything is good in moderation, including and especially religion. Religion is good when one uses it to guide there life for the good of them selves and society. There is defiantly a line where religion becomes bad. My grandpa is an example of bad religion, he is extremely right wing and religious. He thinks that all people that aren't christian (Muslim, Jewish, Islamic...) will be damned into hell for not believing in the bible. He says that it has been proven that Christianity is the only "right" religion because scientists have found the remains of Jesus Christ and not Muhammad, that proves that Muhammad didnt exist and that all other religions are BS.

Another example is my aunt and uncle. They have 5 kids and homeschool them because they think that public schools will corrupt them into hell. They are like 13 years old and cant watch PG rated movies because they might hear the word damn or hell. They are completely isolated from everything except the church.

Personally i think i believe in god, but i would never interpret the bible literally. I definitely believe in science and what can be proven, rather than living purely on blind faith.

 

[worrywort]

why must those who believe in religion also try to convert people of "no faith"

I know what you mean....there are some very pushy religious people out there....it annoys me as much as the next guy when jehovah witnesses knock on my door....but remember they truly believe they've found the truth. Imagine if you truly believed you'd found the cure for cancer....you'd want to tell people right?....it'd be selfish and foolish not to....but I usually find a little bit of patience is all thats required in these kinds of situations.

But also, this idea of conversion I don't believe is exclusive to religious people. I think any discussion on any topic between any two people involves each party trying to "convert" the other to their point of view. Everybody has a set of beliefs, and when you discuss topics with other people you are each trying to debate who's version of the truth is right. So in your post, for example, you tried to convert people to your opinions and now I'm trying to convert you to mine. But convert is such an ugly word because it implies some kind of battle. It's just an exchange of ideas between two human beings both searching for the truth. Some of your beliefs are wrong and some of mine are wrong. But hopefully we can help each other rectify that.

The singularity itself may have existed forever. Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so we assume that it is eternal. Complex things come from simple beginnings, and work their way up gradually. It is much more probable that a simple dot of energy, rather than some complex god, came before the universe as we know it.

hmm....I'm not sure I've heard of this eternal dot of energy....I need to look into the science of the big bang further I think.....but still, I have to ask the question, where did the dot of energy come from? What came before that? erm...I mean, you say it's eternal but that's impossible isn't it? if you had a domino called X that represents today and you needed an eternal number of dominos stretching back into the past to fall before it reaches X, we'd never get to X.....would we?...if you need an eternal number of causes to occur before we reach today we would never reach today. There must have been a beginning....right? If there were 10 dominoes then it would take 10 dominoes to get here. If there were a billion, then it would take a billion dominoes to get here. But if there are an infinite number of dominoes it would take an infinity to get here, which is impossible. Or is that just some kind of philosophical mind trick I've got myself into?!

If the universe has no ultimate meaning or coherence, then I have absolutely no obligation to live life coherently or with meaning....right?!...or wrong?!!

Right. It's your life, so it's up to you to decide how you want to live.

but this can't be true can it? Because if you take it to its logical outworkings, where everybody lives however they want, the bus driver has no obligation to stop for you, the teacher has no obligation to tell you the truth, the banker has no obligation to give you the correct money and I have no obligation to reply in a coherent fashion [no jokes plz! ]. The reason the bus driver stops for you is because he doesn't want to lose his job. He doesn't want to lose his job because he needs the money. He needs the money because he needs to pay the bills and buy food. He needs food because he needs to survive. He needs to survive because......well, that's where it breaks down. Why does he need to survive? to pass on his genes? but why is that a good thing? why should we care? What is the ultimate meaning if there is no god?...and if the uncomfortable truth turns out to be that there is no ultimate meaning, how is man supposed to function? Can man live without God? thats the question!

I haven't fully figured out the logical outworkings of all this yet, but here's some random thoughts and examples. Firstly, there MUST be some degree of meaning in the universe because this sentence I'm writing right now has meaning. Therefore life cannot be totally meaningless. Secondly, if people knew that I believed that my ultimate purpose in life was to survive and pass on my genes, and to be happy and that I believed it was ok for a person to live however they wanted, incoherently and without meaning if they wished, could I really expect people to trust me? I dunno, I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how a life without God can actually work. It just seems ultimately meaningless and nihilistic right now.

any replies are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[SickJoke]

hmm....I'm not sure I've heard of this eternal dot of energy....I need to look into the science of the big bang further I think.....but still, I have to ask the question, where did the dot of energy come from? What came before that? erm...I mean, you say it's eternal but that's impossible isn't it? if you had a domino called X that represents today and you needed an eternal number of dominos stretching back into the past to fall before it reaches X, we'd never get to X.....would we?...if you need an eternal number of causes to occur before we reach today we would never reach today. There must have been a beginning....right? If there were 10 dominoes then it would take 10 dominoes to get here. If there were a billion, then it would take a billion dominoes to get here. But if there are an infinite number of dominoes it would take an infinity to get here, which is impossible. Or is that just some kind of philosophical mind trick I've got myself into?!

It's impossible for the human mind to grasp eternity. However, adding a god into the equation only adds another, more complicated step.

but this can't be true can it? Because if you take it to its logical outworkings, where everybody lives however they want, the bus driver has no obligation to stop for you, the teacher has no obligation to tell you the truth, the banker has no obligation to give you the correct money and I have no obligation to reply in a coherent fashion [no jokes plz! ]. The reason the bus driver stops for you is because he doesn't want to lose his job. He doesn't want to lose his job because he needs the money. He needs the money because he needs to pay the bills and buy food. He needs food because he needs to survive. He needs to survive because......well, that's where it breaks down. Why does he need to survive? to pass on his genes? but why is that a good thing? why should we care? What is the ultimate meaning if there is no god?...and if the uncomfortable truth turns out to be that there is no ultimate meaning, how is man supposed to function? Can man live without God? thats the question!

There's no obligation to care. We have the instinctual drive to survive and reproduce; as you can tell by the suicide rates there's nothing stopping us from disobeying that drive. Who says there needs to be an ultimate meaning to life?

I haven't fully figured out the logical outworkings of all this yet, but here's some random thoughts and examples. Firstly, there MUST be some degree of meaning in the universe because this sentence I'm writing right now has meaning. Therefore life cannot be totally meaningless. Secondly, if people knew that I believed that my ultimate purpose in life was to survive and pass on my genes, and to be happy and that I believed it was ok for a person to live however they wanted, incoherently and without meaning if they wished, could I really expect people to trust me? I dunno, I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how a life without God can actually work. It just seems ultimately meaningless and nihilistic right now.

Yes, there is subjective meaning in the sentence that you're writing. It has meaning to you and possibly someone reading it. However, there's no reason to believe it has some ultimate, god-given meaning.

 

[jackinwa]

I know what you mean....there are some very pushy religious people out there....it annoys me as much as the next guy when jehovah witnesses knock on my door....but remember they truly believe they've found the truth. Imagine if you truly believed you'd found the cure for cancer....you'd want to tell people right?....it'd be selfish and foolish not to....but I usually find a little bit of patience is all thats required in these kinds of situations.

But also, this idea of conversion I don't believe is exclusive to religious people. I think any discussion on any topic between any two people involves each party trying to "convert" the other to their point of view. Everybody has a set of beliefs, and when you discuss topics with other people you are each trying to debate who's version of the truth is right. So in your post, for example, you tried to convert people to your opinions and now I'm trying to convert you to mine. But convert is such an ugly word because it implies some kind of battle. It's just an exchange of ideas between two human beings both searching for the truth. Some of your beliefs are wrong and some of mine are wrong. But hopefully we can help each other rectify that.

Well, my spirituality (aka "religion") is real to me like any other mainstream or fanatical religious person's religion is real to them. I guess in the end it's just psychological.

The more I see or think, the more I know... We really are a crazed and torrid bunch of psychos on this pale blue dot called Earth.

Sad. Maybe we all are doomed. ::::::::

-Jack in WA

 

[worrywort]

It's impossible for the human mind to grasp eternity. However, adding a god into the equation only adds another, more complicated step.

hmm....yea, no atm the way I see it, God is still the only possible solution to the equation.....but I could be wrong....I'm gonna keep thinking about it....but I appreciate your answers.

Who says there needs to be an ultimate meaning to life?

hmm....no one I guess....but it makes more sense to me that there would be, because of the way we give meaning to every other aspect of our lives. Like a tree, from one root comes all the branches, and it's the same pattern everywhere else in the universe. When you study any subject, you start with it's name, then break it down into it's main categories, then from that its sub categories, then more sub categories and further details etc and on and on. and in biology our bodies can be subdivided into organs, then tissues, then cells, then DNA, then genes, then molecules, then atoms, then electrons, etc....so when I ask the question "whats the purpose of life" and follow it back to its roots, I have a lot of difficulty with ending that line of questioning at death and to think that's enough. That life explains itself.

So far, from what I gather, the ultimate purpose in atheism is to survive, to pass on our genes, to be happy and to avoid pain [please correct me if I'm wrong!], whereas the ultimate purpose in christianity is to love god and to love your neighbours. At the moment I still find the atheists answers to life too unsatisfying and incoherent with reality. I think this is because the difference is that without god our search in life has no objective frame of reference and so the search becomes relative to each individual, which can become very problematic when it comes to issues such as morality and meaning. If there is no objective frame of reference then what is wrong for one person isn't necessarily wrong for another. But who decides what's right and wrong? It falls on each individuals shoulders...and this can have some scary ramifications as I believe we've been witnessing throughout the 20th century.

Personally I think that when you follow any line of thought in life right back to its roots, you will eventually come to a first cause, or an ultimate end or a gap that we call infinity, and I believe that everybody has a name for this gap, whether they're conscious of it or not. A Buddhist may name it as an ethereal, impersonal force. A theist may name it as Yahweh, the grumpy god in the sky. Another theist may name it as Jesus, the friendly, sandal-wearing, pastor from Israel. An Atheist may leave the gap unnamed and fill it with nothing. But whatever you fill the gap with I think it's ultimately the most important thing about you, because all of the branches of your life will grow from this root......I think thats why I love talking about this stuff so much!

 

[SickJoke]

hmm....yea, no atm the way I see it, God is still the only possible solution to the equation.....but I could be wrong....I'm gonna keep thinking about it....but I appreciate your answers.


Personally I think that when you follow any line of thought in life right back to its roots, you will eventually come to a first cause, or an ultimate end or a gap that we call infinity, and I believe that everybody has a name for this gap, whether they're conscious of it or not. A Buddhist may name it as an ethereal, impersonal force. A theist may name it as Yahweh, the grumpy god in the sky. Another theist may name it as Jesus, the friendly, sandal-wearing, pastor from Israel. An Atheist may leave the gap unnamed and fill it with nothing. But whatever you fill the gap with I think it's ultimately the most important thing about you, because all of the branches of your life will grow from this root......I think thats why I love talking about this stuff so much!

How does it solve anything? What's the purpose of god? What created god?

That's the same as asking: What's the purpose of the universe? What created the universe?

All it does is add another step, and then the same questions remain unanswered.

hmm....no one I guess....but it makes more sense to me that there would be, because of the way we give meaning to every other aspect of our lives. Like a tree, from one root comes all the branches, and it's the same pattern everywhere else in the universe. When you study any subject, you start with it's name, then break it down into it's main categories, then from that its sub categories, then more sub categories and further details etc and on and on. and in biology our bodies can be subdivided into organs, then tissues, then cells, then DNA, then genes, then molecules, then atoms, then electrons, etc....so when I ask the question "whats the purpose of life" and follow it back to its roots, I have a lot of difficulty with ending that line of questioning at death and to think that's enough. That life explains itself.

Yes, the complexity of life is explained by abiogensis and evolution. The biological purpose of life is to survive and reproduce.

So far, from what I gather, the ultimate purpose in atheism is to survive, to pass on our genes, to be happy and to avoid pain [please correct me if I'm wrong!],

That is wrong . There is no ultimate purpose of atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.

whereas the ultimate purpose in christianity is to love god and to love your neighbours. At the moment I still find the atheists answers to life too unsatisfying and incoherent with reality.

In other words, it's uncomfortable to know that there's no ultimate purpose of life, so belief in a god is reassuring.

I think this is because the difference is that without god our search in life has no objective frame of reference and so the search becomes relative to each individual, which can become very problematic when it comes to issues such as morality and meaning. If there is no objective frame of reference then what is wrong for one person isn't necessarily wrong for another. But who decides what's right and wrong? It falls on each individuals shoulders...and this can have some scary ramifications as I believe we've been witnessing throughout the 20th century.

That's right. Morality is simply an evolved trait that is beneficial to survival. There is no objective morality.

 

[worrywort]

whereas the ultimate purpose in christianity is to love god and to love your neighbours. At the moment I still find the atheists answers to life too unsatisfying and incoherent with reality.

In other words, it's uncomfortable to know that there's no ultimate purpose of life, so belief in a god is reassuring.

eerrrr! lol! you got me!....hehe!...well, not quite....to me a philosophy that is coherent with reality is a clue that I'm on the right track. A philosophy that is incoherent with reality leads me to believe I'm on the wrong track....but I won't lie to you, it's definitely uncomfortable to believe that there's no ultimate purpose in life aswell! if my choice is between a comfortable lie and an uncomfortable truth I hope I'll be brave enough to choose the latter, and I must admit I find it incredibly admirable that there are many people who already have.....but before I make this choice I want to make very certain that I'm not in fact choosing between an uncomfortable lie and a comfortable truth! I think making sure this distinction is correct is definitely worth the effort. wouldn't you agree?

How does it solve anything? What's the purpose of god? What created god?

That's the same as asking: What's the purpose of the universe? What created the universe?

All it does is add another step, and then the same questions remain unanswered.

huh! hang on....you've got me thinking! why did I think God solved it?.....I guess because if the universe started from nothing then whatever caused that first dot of energy to come into existence must exist outside of the laws of our universe, which includes time itself. Unless that first dot of energy is eternal, but I don't believe that's possible.....[as of yet!]

But I think I see what you're saying now more clearly, because now we've replaced this lovely simple dot of energy with the mammoth task of figuring out this "force" that created our universe and is beyond all our psychical laws!...but I doubt, before the simple dot of energy, god was there, hanging around, creating lots of different universes with their own psychical laws etc. I doubt there was much activity that our scientists will now have to disect further under their microscopes....because the "force" that created our universe exists outside of all our universal laws....so this "force" is totally beyond our reach....I guess all we really know is that at some point, something came out of nothing, and this something was powerful enough to create the whole universe as we know it. Whether this force can answer prayers and forgive sins is a leap nobody should be taking at this point.

I guess it boils down to this....IF something came from nothing, then the only thing we can deride from this is that our current understanding of the universe may very well be a drop in the ocean right now. There could be a whole range of other universal laws and dimensions way beyond our comprehension, where a billion years is like a day and a universe is like a grain of sand!

but there's nothing about this force that tells us it's a personal force....it could just as easily be random again....or behave as the rest of our universe behaves.....the atheist needn't get up from his seat....but it does match up with what the bible says about God creating the earth and that god is eternal and beyond our comprehension.

p.s. don't feel you have to reply to all my ramblings btw! I don't mean to direct my problems specifically at you...it's just you're the only person kind enough to have replied to me so far....but I do appreciate your thoughts...I'm pretty sure your brain works about 10 times better than mine!!!

 

[SickJoke]

but before I make this choice I want to make very certain that I'm not in fact choosing between an uncomfortable lie and a comfortable truth! I think making sure this distinction is correct is definitely worth the effort. wouldn't you agree?

Sure, and we base truth on evidence, and there's no evidence that a god exists. We, as emotional creatures, need to be careful not to believe things simply based on comfort.

Unless that first dot of energy is eternal, but I don't believe that's possible.....[as of yet!]

But you believe it's possible for a god to be eternal, why?

 

[worrywort]

But you believe it's possible for a god to be eternal, why?

Because God exists outside of the dimension of time. The dot of energy doesn't. The universe must have had a beginning. If you disagree with this, then you posit an infinite number of causes which is impossible because we would never reach today if that were so. So the universe must have had a beginning. But, one of our universal laws is that something can not come from nothing. So whatever caused the first "something" to come out of nothing must exist outside of our universal laws. Now, time is a dimension of our universe. It was created along with all other dimensions at the big bang. So whatever created the first "something" created the dimension of time itself. Therefore must exist outside of the dimension of time, and if you exist outside of the dimension of time then you don't need a beginning or an end. You just "are". Only finite things need a cause.

Sure, and we base truth on evidence, and there's no evidence that a god exists.

why do you not consider the above as evidence?

 

[SickJoke]

Because God exists outside of the dimension of time. The dot of energy doesn't. The universe must have had a beginning. If you disagree with this, then you posit an infinite number of causes which is impossible because we would never reach today if that were so. So the universe must have had a beginning. But, one of our universal laws is that something can not come from nothing. So whatever caused the first "something" to come out of nothing must exist outside of our universal laws. Now, time is a dimension of our universe. It was created along with all other dimensions at the big bang. So whatever created the first "something" created the dimension of time itself. Therefore must exist outside of the dimension of time, and if you exist outside of the dimension of time then you don't need a beginning or an end. You just "are". Only finite things need a cause.

And why couldn't the singularity, that is, the universe before the big bang, just "be," if you believe that a god can just "be"? Time was created with the big bang, so this singularity would have been outside of time, just as you propose god would be outside of time.

why do you not consider the above as evidence?

I suppose it depends on your definition of god. If god is some kind of intelligence, then there's no evidence for its existence. There's no reason to believe the big bang required some type of intelligence to happen.

 

[Lea]

There is this constant battle between religion and science, but I think neither of them has the truth, not even the truth is in between, but somewhere above it. To the question how this universe was created. Something couldn´t come into being from nothing and if we say it was created by god, we only add one more piece to the puzzle. It logically cannot have any beginning because even if it had "beginning" in the big bang, what was there before it? Nothing? But nothing is also something. Who created the nothing? Anyway let´s say before this world was nothing, but it´s impossible this world just came out of it without any force. And if there was this force, where did the force come from. I can´t see any way to solve this mystery, that´s why I think, "God" is nothing and everything at the same time, has no beginning and no end, is eternal, is and isn´t at the same time. This world is kind of illusion. It exists and doesn´t exist at the same time. At the moment we come to understanding and experiencing this paradox, we will be "home".

 

[SickJoke]

There is this constant battle between religion and science, but I think neither of them has the truth, not even the truth is in between, but somewhere above it. To the question how this universe was created. Something couldn´t come into being from nothing and if we say it was created by god, we only add one more piece to the puzzle. It logically cannot have any beginning because even if it had "beginning" in the big bang, what was there before it? Nothing? But nothing is also something. Who created the nothing? Anyway let´s say before this world was nothing, but it´s impossible this world just came out of it without any force. And if there was this force, where did the force come from. I can´t see any way to solve this mystery, that´s why I think, "God" is nothing and everything at the same time, has no beginning and no end, is eternal, is and isn´t at the same time. This world is kind of illusion. It exists and doesn´t exist at the same time. At the moment we come to understanding and experiencing this paradox, we will be "home".

Where is "home"?

It seems as though you already understand this so-called paradox, so why aren't you "home" yet?

What about all of the other forms of life that are incapable of grasping the idea of this paradox? Are they simply inferior beings? Do they exist merely for the entertainment of humans? On the same token, what about the rest of the universe? Why is one mammalian species, on one tiny speck of a planet, in this incomprehensibly vast universe, so important?

 

[Thelema]

I've been wondering lately...whats the purpose of dying? If God is going to take you up in heaven, what is the point of biological death? Why all the pain and anguish for you and the people around you? Why not just lift you up in to the sky, body and all?

Also...if God feels that the sexual organs are so gross and disgusting and you should feel very shameful about having them and using them...why have them? Why not just get rid of them? Why does a woman need to be in pain to give birth to a child? Why procreation at all? Why doesn't God just instantly create a person?

 

[worrywort]

I suppose it depends on your definition of god. If god is some kind of intelligence, then there's no evidence for its existence. There's no reason to believe the big bang required some type of intelligence to happen.

no it may not be evidence for the god of the bible, but it would be evidence that there are forces in our universe that exist beyond our universal laws as we know them....that should at least open our minds up to other possibilities.

And why couldn't the singularity, that is, the universe before the big bang, just "be," if you believe that a god can just "be"? Time was created with the big bang, so this singularity would have been outside of time, just as you propose god would be outside of time.

yea I was thinking about that.....it's a good point....[so good in fact that I spent my entire easter weekend thinking about this bloody thing! lol!].......unfortunately I don't know enough about the exact psyhics of what happened at the big bang to gauge the likelihood that this happened, but I think what you're saying is that somehow, if we reverse the big bang, the dimension of time must have stretched and distorted exponentially right back to the point of the singularity where it reached zero point and froze, along with all the other dimensions. So at this point of singularity there is no time, there is no space. It's like the pause button was pressed at that very first infinitesimal moment. But here's my question: What brought it out of its paused status? Why didn't the eternal dot of energy just remain eternal? What caused it to "bang"? There must have been something going on inside it. If so aren't we back to our same cause and effect conundrum, needing an uncaused being or force to intervene? I'm not sure. I think I'd have to go away and research further about the specifics of what actually happened at the big bang.

I've been wondering lately...whats the purpose of dying? If God is going to take you up in heaven, what is the point of biological death? Why all the pain and anguish for you and the people around you? Why not just lift you up in to the sky, body and all?

Also...if God feels that the sexual organs are so gross and disgusting and you should feel very shameful about having them and using them...why have them? Why not just get rid of them? Why does a woman need to be in pain to give birth to a child? Why procreation at all? Why doesn't God just instantly create a person?

I think all of your questions can be pretty much boiled down to this.....if God is good, why is there pain?

A couple of years ago my parents got divorced and my dad has been thoroughly depressed and suicidal ever since. In that time there have been MANY occasions when I've asked this exact same question. Where is God in all of this mess?....today I'm still not completely out of the mess yet, but looking back I can already see how much stronger and wiser I've become, and my dad and I have a closer relationship now than we had for the 20 odd years when we were all still together as a family.

I guess my point, in its crudest form, is this: no pain no gain! If you wanna become stronger, you've gotta lift some weights. We grow through pain. If it wasn't for your own personal painful experiences in life you wouldn't be able to help people on this forum as much as you do. It's often during our most painful times that we truly experience Gods love.

"he giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater,
he sendeth more strength when the labours increase,
to added affliction he addeth his mercy,
to multiplied trials his multiplied peace"
- annie johnston flint

also, I think you made a false assumptions in your questions - that gods purpose for our lives is our happiness...I don't believe this is true. I think gods purpose for our lives is to know him, and through this ultimately it will lead to fullfillment, but we may have to go through pain to get there.

 

[Thelema]

I'm not asking why there's pain, but why the complication? What purpose does biological death serve if you just go to heaven anyway?

What purpose does your brain dying serve to release your soul? Why doesn't God just say "okay, now's your time" and you disappear, body and all, to Heaven? Why leave the rotting corpse to stink things up? It seems like an awkward complicated thing to design.

Obviously God has some real problems with the sexual organs, so why sexual organs? Why design something he doesn't like?

Why birth? You believe God creates the baby anyway, why the sex and the birth? God hates vaginas, and he hates sex, so why include them?

A designer is always trying to improve his design in some way, make it simpler, lighter, work better...something. Why do we see such a weird design with mechanisms that serve no practical purpose?

 

[worrywort]

I'm not asking why there's pain, but why the complication? What purpose does biological death serve if you just go to heaven anyway?

What purpose does your brain dying serve to release your soul? Why doesn't God just say "okay, now's your time" and you disappear, body and all, to Heaven? Why leave the rotting corpse to stink things up? It seems like an awkward complicated thing to design.

Obviously God has some real problems with the sexual organs, so why sexual organs? Why design something he doesn't like?

Why birth? You believe God creates the baby anyway, why the sex and the birth? God hates vaginas, and he hates sex, so why include them?

A designer is always trying to improve his design in some way, make it simpler, lighter, work better...something. Why do we see such a weird design with mechanisms that serve no practical purpose?

well the sex thing, my understanding is that God loves sex! He created it. It's one of the greatest gifts he has given us. But he only intended it to be used within certain bounderies. i.e. within marriage. Like fire, if you keep it within the bounderies of the fireplace, where it belongs, it's a beautiful thing that warms the whole house...but if you take it beyond the bounderies it'll spread and you'll end up burning your whole house down. If we obeyed god and did what he told us to, life would probably be sweet, but we like to do things our own way! As a result of sex outside of marriage, we now have aids, herpes, gonorrhoea and other stds, plus unwanted pregnancy's, broken homes and abortions.

As for the death thing, I'm not sure I see the complication.....everything else in the universe has a beginning and an end. All of nature follows the same cycles of life and death. I think we'd have to ask the question, how could we do it any better? What could we propose as an alternative? Because I suspect that if God were to do away with the whole biological process of death and just zap people up to heaven when their time comes, it would probably cause even greater problems. i.e the entire laws of psyhics and biology may have to be rewritten.....also the nature of God would change....our purpose in life would become purely practical, whereas God says our purpose is to know him and love him.