# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Has Maciamo proved that God doesn't exist?

## Tsuyoiko

Maciamo claims to prove that a personal god cannot exist:



> I reject the very concept of god for several reasons, explained in various threads in this subforum. In short, a personal god (i.e. with human emotions, a gender, feelings such as love, anger, compassion...) cannot exist because:
> 1) emotions and feelings require a material brain to exist. 
> 2) An immaterial god could not have created the "existence" without creating itself, which is impossible, out of nothing. 
> 3) With an eternal Universe (i.e. that has always existed), God could only exist as being all the Universe of part of it. Part of it doesn't make much sense, and all of it equals calling it the Universe itself.


1) As I see it, the first part of this proof rests on two things:
a) a personal god is claimed to have emotions
b) emotions and feelings require a material brain to exist

a) The Christian god clearly has emotions, for example:



> God Is Love


But are there any personal gods that aren't claimed to have emotions?

b) Is Maciamo right that a material brain is required? i.e. Can information be stored in a non-physical way?

2) Can something be created out of nothing? According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, no, but that only applies to closed systems. Is it clear that the universe is, and always has been, a closed system?

3) I suppose this depends on what you mean by 'universe'. To me, the universe is everything that exists or has existed, so god would have to be inside the universe. Is it meaningful to talk of something that exists outside the universe?

----------


## Revenant

Why don't you Brits use the proper word 'proven'?  :Poh:  

Anyhow, I would much rather see Maciamo, Strongvoicesforward, and perhaps even kumo, all atheists who seem quite convinced of their correctness vs Philosophy and Mariner of the Philosophy Forum. These two are among the best Christian debators that I have come across, and they seem very well versed in many areas, most probably including the neurosciences.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> To me, the universe is everything that exists or has existed, so god would have to be inside the universe.


Then, would you accept God has limits?

Can God be limited?

If the Universe is expanding, then that would mean God does not exist on the other side of the expansion -- according to your statement.

If God does not exist on the other side, then He couldn`t be omnipotent for then He would have a realm of some place that He has no knowledge of.

So, then what would be your definition of a God? Just some being more knowledgeable than us?

But, if God exists in the Universe and we do to, then it would theoretically be possible to know everything about God because His totality is somewhere that is accessable.

I sure don`t know the answers. But your statement I am willing to bet could never be accepted by anyone in the Xtian faith because the implications are too obvious.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> If the Universe is expanding, then that would mean God does not exist on the other side of the expansion -- according to your statement.


That's using a common use of the word universe, but might not be what I mean by universe. Perhaps I should say 'multiverse'.


> So, then what would be your definition of a God?


Well I'm not sure. Part of the idea of this thread is to collect some definitions which we can then test.

----------


## kumo

Human emotions are all caused by chemical reactions on the brain, they can be easily manipulated using drugs and/or changing the brain physically (like a surgery). So, we can say for sure our emotions depends only on _natural_ causes, and it is impossible to have them without the necessary chemical reactions. 
For a god to have emotions he would need the same chemicals we humans do, which in turn are made of matter and can be proved to exist or not. To say god can have emotions without it would be like saying something can burn without any matter; it's self-contradictory, just like god. And if god is a physical being (as he would need to be to have emotions), we could easily change his feelings with drugs and even kill him, which obviously go against the idea of omnipotence!
That's why I think any god with emotions (personal god) is absurd. Of course, this argument is not valid for any other kind of god (like the deist one), but that is for another thread.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Human emotions are all caused by chemical reactions on the brain, they can be easily manipulated using drugs and/or changing the brain physically (like a surgery). So, we can say for sure our emotions depends only on _natural_ causes, and it is impossible to have them without the necessary chemical reactions. 
> For a god to have emotions he would need the same chemicals we humans do, which in turn are made of matter and can be proved to exist or not.


This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?

----------


## nice gaijin

It's hard to prove the "existence" of an immaterial being or concept. Taking the example of "God is love," it's hard to prove the "existence" of love, let alone God. I think this difficulty is compounded by the fact that in the true sense of the word, God defies definition. To define what God is, is to lose sight of the true meaning of the idea.

I think that some theists get too wrapped up in the doctrine of their choosing when trying to prove the existence of their god(s), and some atheists get too wrapped up in trying to disprove them through contradictions in aforementioned documents, or comparing scientific theories to attempts at defining the almighty/universal truth.

I don't really like the word "God," mostly because everyone seems to attach this idea of an actual sentient being to the term. While I'm not a member of any particular religion, what all religions try to do (particularly the meditative ones, which even christianity was at first) is try to strip away the superficial levels of existence (body, mind) in order to get in touch with the Universal Truth, by whatever name you call it. This truth is not some external force or being, but closer to our true, unconditioned identity. What all mystics claim about this understanding is that as they approach it, their ability to comprehend the universe increases, but it becomes harder to define. Essentially, the totality of "God" is within our grasp, but it's through experience and searching within ourselves that we can understand the Ultimate Reality. It's not something that can be "taught," but the approach to understanding is what differs between the various religious sects.

----------


## kumo

> This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?


The smoking analogy is not a good one, because whatever explanation is used, it will always rely on matter and natural causes. Now for the fire analogy, can we say without any doubt matter is required for something to burn? According to everything we know about fire, *yes*, we can. If someone were to claim differently, the burden of proof would be with him. The same goes to emotions, if someone claim it's possible to have them without matter, he needs to prove it. Until then it's just a meaningless idea.

----------


## Maciamo

@Universe

Let us not get into a pointless discussion about the universe vs multiverse, or different dimensions. My definition of "Universe" is not the one some scientist or astronomist use, meaning "cosmos" or "set of galaxies". I use the philosophical meaning, i.e. "everything that exist", even if that "everything" includes an infinity of multiverses, cosmoses, galaxies and dimensions. What astronomists or physicists see is just our "part" of the universe. But the whole universe cannot be in expansion if it is infinite. Expansion requires some "emptiness" toward which it expands. So the Universe (with a capital letter) includes that emptiness, which is part of the whole. All infinite emptiness there may be beyond is part of the Universe, and that is why it can only be infinite.




> This is the point I find difficult. Granted, our emotions exist entirely in the brain - that's proven by neuroscience. Does it follow that that is the only way emotions can be caused? If my cough is caused by smoking, is smoking the only way to get a cough?


But emotions are not "caused" by the brain, they take place in the brain. They are not _caused_ by chemical reactions, they _are_ chemical reactions.

----------


## No-name

Given the materialistic parameters set by Maciamo, I believe that he is successful. If the numbered premises of his proof are true, his conclusion is solid.

----------


## ]-wandering-raven-[

In meterial ways he might be accurate

But when one Imgines Something,It exists or existed for a second even,Inside the mind,It doesn't need ot be what people think of it,but the concept Is there and thus it exists 

Its like a story ,the story never happened,but the story itself does Exist

"and no I don't belive in god,but by thinking of him and talking about him,we keep the concept of god alive thus even if he never existed,we created him"

----------


## Maciamo

> Its like a story ,the story never happened,but the story itself does Exis


Seeing it this way, I must admit that god, and any gods ever imagined by humans, all exist, as ideas in our minds... But so do dragons, elves, all kinds of aliens and anyone's wildest fantasies. In fact, I do believe that dragons or other fantastic creatures might exist somewhere in the Universe, under different living conditions than on Earth now. It might even be possible to genetically engineer one of those creatures in the future. After all, dinosaurs did exist, and are not so different from the dragons of fantastic movies (well, I admit that our genetically engineered dragon may not throw fire  :Okashii:  ). I am very open minded about the possibilities of the universe. I do believe that an infinity of life beings exist on an infinity of planets somewhere in the infinity of the Universe. But we humans may never reach another of these planets, or if we do, not many of them, given our short life-span and the long distances, because I am more skeptical about light-speed travel...

----------


## ]-wandering-raven-[

"then open your mind and dream maciamo,It'll exist inside you,If you want it to"
"modern day life is near to impossible with too much thoughts,if you question too much,you'll see more problems,but a thought of other things can be relaxing,as a book or tv show..If you want it to ,all can exist,and may be hope we'll never reach the realm that our subconscience creates, It may hold roses and sakura petals,It also holds our greatest fears and nightmares"

----------


## Maciamo

> "then open your mind and dream maciamo,It'll exist inside you,If you want it to"
> "modern day life is near to impossible with too much thoughts,if you question too much,you'll see more problems,but a thought of other things can be relaxing,as a book or tv show..If you want it to ,all can exist,and may be hope we'll never reach the realm that our subconscience creates, It may hold roses and sakura petals,It also holds our greatest fears and nightmares"


Yes, I like that kind of vision of the world too.  :Smiling:

----------


## ]-wandering-raven-[

The term god won't be erased too soon,but as many things, God is used ,and abused 

"like the best play i've seen on religion and politics so far Hitler in it said "

"A good Ruler uses his peoples beliefs to his advantage"

"truly..i found those wordzs rather true"

"Gods are created for justifying many cuases,and also Death in name of a god that dislikes death"

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> The smoking analogy is not a good one, because whatever explanation is used, it will always rely on matter and natural causes.





> But emotions are not "caused" by the brain, they take place in the brain. They are not _caused_ by chemical reactions, they _are_ chemical reactions.


I agree, it was a poor analogy. But I still need help. Although all emotions _we know of_ are brain states, does it follow that that's the only way emotions can exist? Or to simplify the question, is there an immaterial way to store information?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> It's hard to prove the "existence" of an immaterial being or concept. Taking the example of "God is love," it's hard to prove the "existence" of love, let alone God. I think this difficulty is compounded by the fact that in the true sense of the word, God defies definition. To define what God is, is to lose sight of the true meaning of the idea.


I don't think anything defies definition. We might not have the language or knowledge to define something, but that doesn't mean it can't be defined.



> I don't really like the word "God," mostly because everyone seems to attach this idea of an actual sentient being to the term.


That's exectly what Maciamo has claimed to prove - that a _sentient_ god can't exist. Any other kind of gods get let of the hook for now!


> While I'm not a member of any particular religion, what all religions try to do (particularly the meditative ones, which even christianity was at first) is try to strip away the superficial levels of existence (body, mind) in order to get in touch with the Universal Truth, by whatever name you call it. This truth is not some external force or being, but closer to our true, unconditioned identity. What all mystics claim about this understanding is that as they approach it, their ability to comprehend the universe increases, but it becomes harder to define. Essentially, the totality of "God" is within our grasp, but it's through experience and searching within ourselves that we can understand the Ultimate Reality. It's not something that can be "taught," but the approach to understanding is what differs between the various religious sects.


What you describe here is pretty much the difficulty I had in deciding if I believed in god. I believe in mystical experiences, and I confused that with god. I now think that a mystical experience is one in which you feel yourself to be part of something impressive that could exist without you. And that doesn't require a separate consciousness, IMO - so I'm an atheist.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> I use the philosophical meaning, i.e. "everything that exist", even if that "everything" includes an infinity of multiverses, cosmoses, galaxies and dimensions. What astronomists or physicists see is just our "part" of the universe. But the whole universe cannot be in expansion if it is infinite. Expansion requires some "emptiness" toward which it expands. So the Universe (with a capital letter) includes that emptiness, which is part of the whole. All infinite emptiness there may be beyond is part of the Universe, and that is why it can only be infinite.


That is _exactly_ what I mean by Universe. Thanks Maciamo :)

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Given the materialistic parameters set by Maciamo, I believe that he is successful. If the numbered premises of his proof are true, his conclusion is solid.


I agree - the conclusion follows from the premises. But the hard work is in deciding if the premises are in fact true!  :Relieved:

----------


## Maciamo

> I agree, it was a poor analogy. But I still need help. Although all emotions _we know of_ are brain states, does it follow that that's the only way emotions can exist? Or to simplify the question, is there an immaterial way to store information?


The word "emotions" refers to emotions human beings know about, simply because we are humans using a human-made language. We also happen to be the most intellectually developed species on the planet, which does not give us the chance to observe other "superior" emotions. However, I am pretty sure that an animal species with a more complex brain and higher intelligence could experience more complex emotions than us. In fact, humans already have thousands of distinct emotions which are refered under a general term (e.g. there are many kinds of "anger", and indeed many words for it in English, but surely not enough to describe all nuances of possible angers). 

However, it doesn't matter "how many" emotions there can exist, or how many we don't know about, there are no more proofs that emotions can exist outside a physical mind than proofs than "immateriality" exist. 

I think that many people are confused about the meaning of "material vs spiritual". Originally, the word "spiritual" refered to things that we could see, happening in our minds (thoughts, emotions, feelings...). But in philosophy, the word "material" also includes invisible energy, including what is going on in our brain. So far there is no proof that anything "immaterial" exist anywhere in the Universe.

Too many people already cannot distinguish between feelings and emotions, and indeed I don't know any language that has clear-cut words separating sensual feelings (warth, cold, pain, physical unease, sweat...), complex emotional feelings (real love, friendship, humanity, rivalry...), raw emotions (fear, anger, excitement, joy, sadness...), complex emotions (such as coneyed by music, a painting, etc.), intuitive feelings (premonition, body language...), socio-spititual feelings (sense of harmony, belonging or security; meditation, consciousness...), etc.

What I want to say is that, never mind how we humans categorise and define emotions and feelings, they are all merely chemical reactions between the neurons in our brain. This has been proven, because we can see a neural activity by magnetic resonance, scanner, or other brain imaging tools, for *any* emotion or feeling. This somehow proves that "emotions" (as understood by humans and defined by the human word), only exist in the material form (e.g. energy, chemcial reactions...). Removing, altering or inhibiting (with chemicals, electric impulses...) a part of the brain, prevents emotions from happening or existing. This shows that there is nothing "immaterial" in their properties, otherwise a "material" (i.e physical or chemical) change would not have any effect on them.

We can of course speculate that something similar to human emotions could exist in an "immaterial form", for which we have not the slighest proof or even sign of existence. This is _really_ far-fetched, and personally I think that aliens or fantastic creatures in all their forms are extremely more likely to exist than "immateriality". Even if "immateriality" exist, it wouldn't increase the likelihood of an omnipotent/creator god.

----------


## Dutch Baka

Can somebody prove that he does exist? ( for the rest I won't go much into the thread not, maybe later, but im just wondering about anybody can prove that he does exist... please don't feel you have to response on this post because it's to short for this thread, but maybe you can think about it)

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> We can of course speculate that something similar to human emotions could exist in an "immaterial form", for which we have not the slighest proof or even sign of existence. This is _really_ far-fetched, and personally I think that aliens or fantastic creatures in all their forms are extremely more likely to exist than "immateriality". Even if "immateriality" exist, it wouldn't increase the likelihood of an omnipotent/creator god.


This is bit I need. Since you concede that it's possible (if extremely unlikely) that information can exist in an immaterial form, we can't establish the truth of the first premise with absolute certainty - so we can't claim the proof. But it might still count as a scientific theory, if we can agree that a personal god 'contains' information. What do you think?

----------


## Maciamo

> Can somebody prove that he does exist?


From an individual point of view, existence is merely what we can sense or exist in our mind. Therefore, if the "idea of god" exist in our mind, this "idea" does exist (but that doesn't prove that it refers to something outside our mind). 

We are going a bit too much into Descartes's philosophy here. Personally I think it is both ridiculous and useless to limit existence to what is in our mind, as our senses only "partially fool us". Of course our eyes and hear are not perfect, and only sense a limited range of signals, but what they sense does exist (of course, we could still argue that our brain misinterpret the information received...).

----------


## No-name

In the strictest materialistic sense- proving that God exists scientifically means producing some measure of material proof- which has not been done. However there is no material proof of non-existence- which would be rather impossible. Proof of the existence of God is available, but it is neither objective or material- and would not be considered scientific at all. The fact that according to a graph posted in an earlier thread, nearly 90% of the global population believes in the existence of God (or gods if you look at the methodology) is some indication of how prevalent this belief is and how persuasive the subjective, non-scientific proof is.

----------


## PRIZMATIC

At me such "feeling", that I already saw this "film"... many times... :Mad:  It probably "hobby" - to deny the God, demanding the proof of his existence from "believers (?!)"... Such "incorrect" statement of a question... :Note:  
When I offered (the blessing the modern saved up knowledge allow to do it "without effort") to people specifying questions about confirmations of existence of the God to tell to me about the reasons of process (for example) origin and becoming of our solar system except for the general phrases from the school program (or scientific editions) about the theory (!) of similar process I heard nothing in the answer, that would give real (not theoretical) a picture of the reasons and systems of origin. They came to a conclusion, that all their knowledge there are only reflections of the knowledge of someone's theories received by them, reflections, etc.(.......)
Then I asked them, that you want from "believing" people, whose choice is caused only by that they in it trust (!!!) and all... What for you ask them about The one who about itself does not ask them (?)... The god never spoke people - " tell to me about me "... He only spoke - " trust in me and follow my laws "... And through "wisdom" of these laws - "Belief" became a part of a life of people... ( ) And, as a rule, when people thought of that "believing" people only trust in "It" adherents " denyings of the God " became little bit "clarified" in the irreconcilable aspiration - " to find out the answer from people which only trust in this God "...
But and for reception of "proofs" of existence of the God to start follows even from correct perusal of the Bible. For today for people - that the "God", that "Lord God" - is not present distinction... First it is necessary to "manage" this book to "read", and then search a"author"... :Blush:

----------


## Power77

> Seeing it this way, I must admit that god, and any gods ever imagined by humans, all exist, as ideas in our minds... But so do dragons, elves, all kinds of aliens and anyone's wildest fantasies. In fact, I do believe that dragons or other fantastic creatures might exist somewhere in the Universe, under different living conditions than on Earth now. It might even be possible to genetically engineer one of those creatures in the future. After all, dinosaurs did exist, and are not so different from the dragons of fantastic movies (well, I admit that our genetically engineered dragon may not throw fire  ). I am very open minded about the possibilities of the universe. I do believe that an infinity of life beings exist on an infinity of planets somewhere in the infinity of the Universe. But we humans may never reach another of these planets, or if we do, not many of them, given our short life-span and the long distances, because I am more skeptical about light-speed travel...


What do you mean?
That elves, dragons and the like could have been aliens or something?
Makes me think about String Theory!

----------


## Aberdeen

Well, Power77, you've revived quite an old thread, but I find the subject interesting.

I think the problem with discussing "does God exist", at least for people who grew up in the Western world, is that arguments are often based on the Abrahamic religious concept of a god that is big enough to create a universe full of galaxies and small enough to care who you sleep with. And I think that idea is nonsense. Any god that created the universe would, according to me, have to be outside its creation, so would not be personally involved in the lives of individuals, and we would not be able to ascertain whether such an entity exists. 

Could there be other, more personal "gods" that are part of this universe, "eternal" only from a human perspective and interested in being involved in the lives of individuals? My European ancestors certainly seem to have thought so - the Moon Goddess, for example, must obviously have been seen as a part of this universe, but living on a different dimension, so that people only saw an external image in the physical world and needed to enter the world of meditation or dreams to meet the persona behind the physical presence. And it's obvious that many ancient Europeans believed that such Gods and Goddesses existed, and that they could interact with them. Of course, modern material science would set such parameters as to exclude the possibility that such entities could exist, while arguing for the existence of things such as quarks and dark matter, things that cannot be seen but whose existence can be inferred by the believer. I am not quite so quick to believe in quarks and dark matter or quite so quick to dismiss the possibility of the existence of Gods and Goddesses who are part of our universe, which demonstrates how unscientific my mind is. But I do think that the existence of a god that is both transcendental and personal is quite improbable.

----------


## Angela

Tangentially related, perhaps, but you might find this interesting...

Caveman instincts may explain our belief in gods and ghosts
http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogsp...l#.U4IEnyguNay

----------


## gyms

*How to Argue That God Does Not Exist
Edited by MrsB, Maluniu, EvilFlame, Ash Furrow and 86 others
*Many zealots are very defensive concerning the nonexistence of god. Often times, an atheist will be verbally challenged simply because of their lack of religious belief. It is at these times when one could raise these questions. However, it should be noted that while proving nonexistence is a logical impossibility, proving existence on the basis of fideism (by faith) is harder still.
http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-That-God-Does-Not-Exist

The Origin of the Universe
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin...-universe.html

What Happened Before The Big Bang
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...-the-big-bang/

----------


## gyms

What´s the origin of all information in the universe?What was first,the information or the function?(ex.DNA,RNA)

----------


## Echetlaeus

No, he hasn't.
As long as you do not know how the cosmos was created, these kind of statements have no value.

With respect,
-E-

----------


## Aberdeen

> No, he hasn't.
> As long as you do not know how the cosmos was created, these kind of statements have no value.
> 
> With respect,
> -E-


So, as long as we don't know how the cosmos was created, it makes more sense to believe that the world was created by an angry Bronze Age sky god? And that humankind is in a fallen state because a snake talked some woman into eating an apple? Yah, that seems logical.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> So, as long as we don't know how the cosmos was created, it makes more sense to believe that the world was created by an angry Bronze Age sky god? And that humankind is in a fallen state because a snake talked some woman into eating an apple? Yah, that seems logical.


There are many theories.
As long as Physics cannot explain what was before the Bing Bang, it is not irrational to believe that a supreme power may exist.

This supreme power may not be the God of the Bible or other earthly religions.

----------


## LeBrok

> There are many theories.
> As long as Physics cannot explain what was before the Bing Bang, it is not irrational to believe that a supreme power may exist.
> 
> This supreme power may not be the God of the Bible or other earthly religions.


Yes it is irrational to believe in anything just because science can't explain yet. Why do you need to believe, can't you say "I just don't know"?

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Yes it is irrational to believe in anything just because science can't explain yet. Why do you need to believe, can't you say "I just don't know"?


I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.

Can I prove the existence or non-existance of a "god"? Absolutely NO.

To my understanding it will take a long, really long time---I doubt that it will happen though---for the scientists to explain the beginning of everything.

Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.

----------


## gyms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU

The Holographic Universe (Part One)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw

The Afterlife Dysfunction

----------


## Aberdeen

> I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.
> 
> Can I prove the existence or non-existance of a "god"? Absolutely NO.
> 
> To my understanding it will take a long, really long time---I doubt that it will happen though---for the scientists to explain the beginning of everything.
> 
> Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.


Please refer to the article that Angela mentioned. It offers and explanation as to why we seem to have a need to attribute intentionality to what may be simply natural processes, so that we also have a need to imagine an actor behind those events where there may in fact be none.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Please refer to the article that Angela mentioned. It offers and explanation as to why we seem to have a need to attribute intentionality to what may be simply natural processes, so that we also have a need to imagine an actor behind those events where there may in fact be none.



Yes, it is true that humans have the tendency to create gods, nonetheless this does not prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
Modern Physics is based on quanta and strings, which tend to describe the world better than before.

It may be true that the world works this way, but theories have changed many times. Hopefully research will lead to a better understanding of things.

Probabilistic as the world may be, it should have a beginning. This very beginning is the ultimate question ... I like to call it _πρώτη αρχή_.

P.S. You are about to become Marquess soon :P

----------


## LeBrok

> I just say that some people have the need to believe, and my point is that as long as I cannot prove otherwise, I have no problem with the possible existence of a supreme being.
> 
> Can I prove the existence or non-existence of a "god"? Absolutely NO.


 As long as we can't disprove the negative let's believe in Santa Clause and Fairies too, and whatever you can imagine, right? In this case everybody should imagine a god he/she likes and believe in it. Why do we need to fallow someone else imagination in form of organized religion?

Someone wise said long time ago, that if you invented something and want people to believe in it, the proof is on you.





> Some scientists even believe that we live in a 2D world, and what we see as 3D is just a projection. Don't ask me more, I think it was an article in Nature two or three months ago.


Not really. Just because one can imagine something it doesn't mean one needs to believe in it. Scientists, and people in general, can imagine possibilities, and when it seams plausible they can call it hypothesis. It is not even a theory yet. 
Now, when you understand the belief as the way devotees believe then certainly these scientists don't believe in holographic universe. When you understand a belief as something being remotely possible then yes they believe.

----------


## Echetlaeus

Yes, you can believe in whatever you want as long as someone cannot disapprove that belief.
If scientific procedures have shown that this belief ain't true, then it is not wise to believe in that anymore.

My point is that she/he, as a human being, has the right to believe, and some people with different opinion without proof, should not fight them for what their beliefs are.

----------


## LeBrok

> Yes, you can believe in whatever you want as long as someone cannot disapprove that belief.
> If scientific procedures have shown that this belief ain't true, then it is not wise to believe in that anymore.


 Let's get it straight. Do you believe in Santa Clause, because there is no scientific procedure disproving him?




> My point is that she/he, as a human being, has the right to believe, and some people with different opinion without proof, should not fight them for what their beliefs are.


 Yes we have rights to do many stupid things, as long as we are not harming others. But this discussion is not about human rights. It is about validity of someones beliefs. The proof of every hypothesis lies on inventor. Otherwise we can believe in Godzilla or imaginary friends. It doesn't make them real, period.

----------


## Echetlaeus

> Let's get it straight. Do you believe in Santa Clause, because there is no scientific procedure disproving him?
> 
> Yes we have rights to do many stupid things, as long as we are not harming others. But this discussion is not about human rights. It is about validity of someones beliefs. The proof of every hypothesis lies on inventor. Otherwise we can believe in Godzilla or imaginary friends. It doesn't make them real, period.


I believe in Santa, yes.
Hopefully I will get a present next year ...

The word "proof" is very strong. In order to have it, you need to have experiments that give, always, the same results.

It is OK to call it hypothesis, but I do not like this extra verbalism.

----------


## holderlin

This thread is straight out of the 16th century. Refreshing in a way.

----------


## Sile

What I was taught about religion

1 - There is only one God.

2 - all humans today, who pray to God , pray to the same God that the stone-age people prayed to ( and all others inbetween in human history ).

3 - Anyone who changes religions , do not believe in God as the final result of the change makes no difference ( I think they meant, One has no faith in changing a religious "club " ).

----------


## sparkey

> What I was taught about religion
> 
> 1 - There is only one God.
> 
> 2 - all humans today, who pray to God , pray to the same God that the stone-age people prayed to ( and all others inbetween in human history ).
> 
> 3 - Anyone who changes religions , do not believe in God as the final result of the change makes no difference ( I think they meant, One has no faith in changing a religious "club " ).


Do you believe what you were taught? Because it seems irreconcilable with the nature of most historical religions.

----------


## Rethel

> Maciamo claims to prove that a personal god cannot exist:


Where it is originally written?

----------


## sparkey

> Where it is originally written?


From way back in 2006: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post292750

----------


## Sile

> Do you believe what you were taught? Because it seems irreconcilable with the nature of most historical religions.


well, it has its merits

for 1 - the same God must have been around when the first humans started praying..............I cannot see that this God disappeared as other religions formed., can you?

2 - If you believe there is more than one God, let me know, we can discuss this

3 - I believe nobody sits between me and my prays to God, so yes I believe in my option 3 of the previous post............why change religions when you pray to the same God?

IMO, historical religions are purely for groupings of people, .............it was to form morality and to replace tribal communities................If these religions state that you soul goes up to God, then clearly from stone-age man, their souls went tothe same God....or do we believe otherwise?

----------


## Rethel

> From way back in 2006: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post292750


A pretty old stuff... :)
Maybe tomorrow I'll read...

----------


## sparkey

> for 1 - the same God must have been around when the first humans started praying..............I cannot see that this God disappeared as other religions formed., can you?


To me, a god is something thought to be personable (i.e. it has associated stories and is humanlike) and supernatural (i.e. it has special powers). We could tell that one god is different from another god if they had different stories, personalities, and powers. Clearly different religions have different gods with different stories, personalities, and powers, and many religions even have multiple gods. Hence there hasn't been only one God throughout all the religions, there have been many.




> 2 - If you believe there is more than one God, let me know, we can discuss this


I'm an atheist, but I think we can look at this through a purely anthropological lens, so my beliefs shouldn't matter too much in this conversation. Certainly many cultures, both modern and historical, would _tell you_ that there are many gods, and plenty of other cultures would _tell you_ that their god is different from all other gods. I'm curious about how you would reconcile this.




> IMO, historical religions are purely for groupings of people, .............it was to form morality and to replace tribal communities................If these religions state that you soul goes up to God, then clearly from stone-age man, their souls went tothe same God....or do we believe otherwise?


It's pretty easy to find religions that don't match that pattern, though. Buddhism doesn't say that your "soul goes up to God." Germanic paganism didn't think that everyone would meet one particular god in the afterlife. Etc.

----------


## Sile

> To me, a god is something thought to be personable (i.e. it has associated stories and is humanlike) and supernatural (i.e. it has special powers). We could tell that one god is different from another god if they had different stories, personalities, and powers. Clearly different religions have different gods with different stories, personalities, and powers, and many religions even have multiple gods. Hence there hasn't been only one God throughout all the religions, there have been many.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an atheist, but I think we can look at this through a purely anthropological lens, so my beliefs shouldn't matter too much in this conversation. Certainly many cultures, both modern and historical, would _tell you_ that there are many gods, and plenty of other cultures would _tell you_ that their god is different from all other gods. I'm curious about how you would reconcile this.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to find religions that don't match that pattern, though. Buddhism doesn't say that your "soul goes up to God." Germanic paganism didn't think that everyone would meet one particular god in the afterlife. Etc.


I care little if one is religious or not.....I actually have many atheist friends.

On Buddhism, ..........it believes in life after death, which is why Japanese people, born Shinto religion change to buddhism for this after daeth life. 

On one God or not - If you believe that there was many Gods, then the ancient religions are correct, if you believe in one God only, then they are not............I stated , I was taught there was only one God, and that God represented/s all humans for "a God" regardless of time or different religions used.

----------


## Aberdeen

> well, it has its merits
> 
> for 1 - the same God must have been around when the first humans started praying..............I cannot see that this God disappeared as other religions formed., can you?
> 
> 2 - If you believe there is more than one God, let me know, we can discuss this
> 
> 3 - I believe nobody sits between me and my prays to God, so yes I believe in my option 3 of the previous post............why change religions when you pray to the same God?
> 
> IMO, historical religions are purely for groupings of people, .............it was to form morality and to replace tribal communities................If these religions state that you soul goes up to God, then clearly from stone-age man, their souls went tothe same God....or do we believe otherwise?


Jehovah, Brahma or any other god needn't have been around when humans first started praying if humans were mistaken in believing that a god existed. But in fact as far as we can tell the idea of one universal god is only somewhere between three and four thousand years old if were talking about Egyptian, Persian or Jewish monotheism, and in fact the Egyptian heretical pharoh, like the early Jews, didn't believe his god was the only god, just the only one that really mattered. And the idea found in some schools of Hinduism that all their deities are manifestations of their creator god is probably only a couple of thousand years old.

I don't see the need for a creator god if the universe has always existed. And I think that if one wants to argue in favour of deity, one has to choose between a universal creator deity or a more local entity that concerns itself with human affairs. I can't imagine a god large enough to create billions of galaxies but also small enough to care about the behaviour of individuals. And, IMO, there's not much point in believing in a universal creator deity if he's too busy creating more galaxies to bother with you.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I care little if one is religious or not.....I actually have many atheist friends.
> 
> On Buddhism, ..........it believes in life after death, which is why Japanese people, born Shinto religion change to buddhism for this after daeth life. 
> 
> On one God or not - If you believe that there was many Gods, then the ancient religions are correct, if you believe in one God only, then they are not............I stated , I was taught there was only one God, and that God represented/s all humans for "a God" regardless of time or different religions used.


I was taught to believe in Santa Claus when I was young. That doesn't prove that Santa Claus exists anywhere outside the human mind. What I think it proves is that humans are capable of believing in immortal, magical beings that don't actually exist.

----------


## Twilight

> I was taught to believe in Santa Claus when I was young. That doesn't prove that Santa Claus exists anywhere outside the human mind. What I think it proves is that humans are capable of believing in immortal, magical beings that don't actually exist.


The Santa Claus we know today was based off of a saint named St. Nicholas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

----------


## Sile

> Jehovah, Brahma or any other god needn't have been around when humans first started praying if humans were mistaken in believing that a god existed. But in fact as far as we can tell the idea of one universal god is only somewhere between three and four thousand years old if were talking about Egyptian, Persian or Jewish monotheism, and in fact the Egyptian heretical pharoh, like the early Jews, didn't believe his god was the only god, just the only one that really mattered. And the idea found in some schools of Hinduism that all their deities are manifestations of their creator god is probably only a couple of thousand years old.
> 
> I don't see the need for a creator god if the universe has always existed. And I think that if one wants to argue in favour of deity, one has to choose between a universal creator deity or a more local entity that concerns itself with human affairs. I can't imagine a god large enough to create billions of galaxies but also small enough to care about the behaviour of individuals. And, IMO, there's not much point in believing in a universal creator deity if he's too busy creating more galaxies to bother with you.


I am not saying anything about any creation of anything........I am saying that there was only one god about faith, and that one god was prayed to by all. If you think there is more than 1 god, good for you I care little. If you say there was no god, I care little again.

None of my business on if you believe in a faith or not.

The only thing I am saying is........*IF one believes in only 1 God, then that one God was prayed to by all humans since they began worshipping.*

----------


## Aberdeen

> I am not saying anything about any creation of anything........I am saying that there was only one god about faith, and that one god was prayed to by all. If you think there is more than 1 god, good for you I care little. If you say there was no god, I care little again.
> 
> None of my business on if you believe in a faith or not.
> 
> The only thing I am saying is........*IF one believes in only 1 God, then that one God was prayed to by all humans since they began worshipping.*


Well, Muslims and modern Jews worship a single god who they believe is the only god that ever existed, unlike earlier Jews who saw their god as the first among gods and unlike most Christians, who see their god as both one and threefold. The pharoh who tried to introduce monotheism to Egypt saw his god, who he eventually came to see as the only god, as a sun disc. Zoroastrians see their one god as illuminating wisdom that is not immanent in this world but is instead represented by entities that are similar to the Christian concept of angels. The Vaishnavism branch of Hinduism sees Vishnu as the one god who is represented by ten avatars, including Rama and Krishna. These different concepts of one god are clearly not all the same, but if you want to believe that these different groups with very different ideas about there being only one god are worshipping the same deity, fine. That doesn't prove that any of these versions of the one god actually exist.

----------


## Aberdeen

> The Santa Claus we know today was based off of a saint named St. Nicholas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas


Ah, yes, the Turkish saint who wears a red suit and travels through the sky on a sled pulled by reindeer. As Turkish saints generally do. 

I suspect that the legend of Saint Nicholas was created in an attempt to christianize some northern European concept of a god of the winter solstice.

----------


## John Doe

> Ah, yes, the Turkish saint who wears a red suit and travels through the sky on a sled pulled by reindeer. As Turkish saints generally do. 
> 
> I suspect that the legend of Saint Nicholas was created in an attempt to christianize some northern European concept of a god of the winter solstice.


St. Nicholas was Greek, not Turkish though. And earlier portraits of him show him being far from a northwestern European with pink cheeks, rather, more like a person from the Mediterranean basin.

----------


## Aberdeen

> St. Nicholas was Greek, not Turkish though. And earlier portraits of him show him being far from a northwestern European with pink cheeks, rather, more like a person from the Mediterranean basin.


Okay, Saint Nicholas was a Greek living in what is now Turkey, before the Turks showed up, so my choice of words wasn't precise enough. That doesn't explain the reindeer or the magical god-like aspects of the modern Santa Claus. My point was that millions of children believe in the magical powers of Santa Claus, just as millions of people believe in the magical powers of other gods.

And, btw, eastern Mediterranean type people such as Greeks aren't northwestern Europeans, they're southeastern Europeans.

----------


## Rethel

> My point was that millions of children believe in the magical powers of Santa Claus,


I was never beliving in that, neither when adult people try to convinced me.
When I was 3 or 4, I saw a Santa, who had a female legs and shoes  :Laughing: 
This fact didn't even disprooved Santa in my eyes, because before that fact I was never beliving in him.

But I always was beliving in God. Not because someone taught me that, but because it is logical.

Santa never was logical or real for me.

God always was.

And even in theory, existence of God-Absolute who is beyond the Creation is
much more coplicated thing than some Santa Claus and his elves, which are
seem do be a products of Disney's cartoons rather than personal reasonable 
and scholastic (with hugely build theological knowledge) Neccesery Being.

So I must say, that trying to compare god's existence to stupid teaching 
of stupid parents who want make their children stupid - is nonsensical.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## John Doe

> And, btw, eastern Mediterranean type people such as Greeks aren't northwestern Europeans, they're southeastern Europeans.


I'm aware of that, and truth be told, I doubt Anatolian Turks descend overwhelmingly from Mongolia 800 years ago.

----------


## Rethel

> I'm aware of that, and truth be told, I doubt Anatolian Turks descend overwhelmingly from Mongolia 800 years ago.


It must be small percentage of them.

For examle hg C+N+O+Q=7,31% plus maybe some of R1a, but not so much.

So average circa 8% people of Turkey comes from Mongolia.
(not 800 y.a., but a couple of hundrets of years earlier, but it doesn't matter)
And if hg C is original paleoaltaic hg that means that amongs
Turkish people "turkishness" is only in 1,34% of them...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Aberdeen

> I'm aware of that, and truth be told, I doubt Anatolian Turks descend overwhelmingly from Mongolia 800 years ago.


I never said they were. You seem determined to take this thread off topic. My point was that the myth of Saint Nicholas is insufficient to explain the idea of an entity such as Santa Claus, also known in some countries as Father Christmas. It seems clear to me that he is partly a northern European folk memory of a god of the winter solstice. My initial point was that people believe in or claim to believe in all kinds of gods whose existence can't be demonstrated.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I was never beliving in that, neither when adult people try to convinced me.
> When I was 3 or 4, I saw a Santa, who had a female legs and shoes 
> This fact didn't even disprooved Santa in my eyes, because before that fact I was never beliving in him.
> 
> But I always was beliving in God. Not because someone taught me that, but because it is logical.
> 
> Santa never was logical or real for me.
> 
> God always was.
> ...


How is it nonsensical to compare the existence of one immortal, magical entity (Santa Claus) to the existence of another immortal, magical being (God) if neither entity can be proven to exist outside the human mind? Why do you say that the existence of an ubergod is logical? Who created him? If we're going to claim that something always existed and therefore needs no creator, I'd rather apply that idea to the universe, which can actually be shown to exist.

Even if you could prove that some sort of ubergod exists, you certainly can't prove that he's the god of any particular religion, or that he cares more about humans than he does about chickens or shrubs.

----------


## Rethel

> How is it nonsensical to compare the existence of one immortal, magical entity (Santa Claus) to the existence of another immortal, magical being (God) if neither entity can be proven to exist outside the human mind?


1) It is not true!
If at the midnight at 24/25 XII Santa doesn't come to your house - this means that he doesn't exist! 

2) How can you compare fiction person from Disneys cartoons with subject of study through thosands years... 

Besides, noone never claimed that Santa Claus existed and never show any proofs.
Santa never had a church, books, prophets, message, plan, and explanation of us, him and the world.
So - what are you talking about? This is simply trivial and unserious...




> Why do you say that the existence of an ubergod is logical?


Because we are, and we know about it.




> Who created him?


Concept of uncreated Creator cannot have many creators of creators, because it does not have sense.

This is much better, than belive, that nothing nowhere never exploded and... here we are! Eureka!




> If we're going to claim that something always existed and therefore needs no creator,


And this is wrong!
Because The God doesn't always existed...
He is beyond the time, so he simply existed.
In his existence there is no begining, no past, no present, no future, and no end.
There is no time. He exist in notime.
He doesn't need a theoretical creator, because he never had a beginning, he has no linear present, and he has no end.
He is timeless and spaceless Existance beyond the Creation.

For exaple, you are not part of your Computer, and you are not dependent from priciples who rule inside your computer.




> ubergod


If you are creating such words please use ü. Thanks.  :Cool V: 




> exists, you certainly can't prove that he's the god of any particular religion, or that he cares more about humans than he does about chickens or shrubs.


If such kind of God of whom I am talking about exists, he should
contact us in acient times and creat some faithfull succession of
beliving people/tradition with some written information from him.
And such a religion couldn't loose their fight with others religions.
This conditions exclude everything except Christianity.

----------


## Aberdeen

Rethel, your god hasn't come to my house, so by your logic he doesn't exist. And if he exists in no time, he doesn't exist in this universe. And there are lots of religions that have an organized religious structure with priests and ancient books that explain their religious concepts - read the Vedas and you'll see one example. 

The only thing unique about christianity, in my opinion, is that your god is depicted in your holy book as a dangerous sociopath who did many evil things, such as sending bears to kill little children who made fun of one of his prophets. Your god even killed his own son and brought him back to life in order to impress people - that was the act of a madman. None of the gods or goddesses mentioned in the Vedas ever did anything that wicked.

----------


## Maleth

1. Christianity 2.1 billion 
2. Islam 1.3 billion 
3. Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion 
4. Hinduism 900 million 
5. Chinese traditional religion 394 million 
6. Buddhism 376 million (see also buddhism by country) 
7. Primal indigenous 300 million 
8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million 
9. Sikhism 23 million 
10. Juche 19 million 
11. Spiritism 15 million 
12. Judaism 14 million 
13. Bahá'í Faith 7 million 
14. Jainism 4.2 million 
15. Shinto 4 million 
16. Cao Dai 4 million 
17. Zoroastrianism 2.6 million 
18. Tenrikyo 2 million 
19. Neopaganism 1 million 
20. Unitarian Universalism 800,000 
21. Rastafari movement 600,000

and many of these are again subdiveded in adversory groups to make different religions climb to thousands. Which one is really the church of god?

----------


## Rethel

> Rethel, your god hasn't come to my house, so by your logic he doesn't exist.


Wrong argument again!
Noone ever said, that Jahwe are coming to every house as a man, especially, at one particular time every year.
So, your thinking is wrong at the beginnig.





> And if he exists in no time, he doesn't exist in this universe.


Of course!
Noone never claim that he exists in this universe, like a shoemaker doesn't live in shoes.




> And there are lots of religions that have an organized religious structure with priests and ancient books that explain their religious concepts - read the Vedas and you'll see one example.


There are almost only nonsenses, exept one: they also know, that existe one supreme God.

Besides, hinduism is so primitive, that he cannot came here and explain his way of "salvation".
So, hindism doesn't care, if I will be a hinduist or not. Hindusim doesn't want me and his gods do not want me too.




> The only thing unique about christianity, in my opinion, is that your god is depicted in your holy book as a dangerous sociopath who did many evil things, such as sending bears to kill little children who made fun of one of his prophets. Your god even killed his own son and brought him back to life in order to impress people - that was the act of a madman.


I don't have so many time and vocabulary to disscus about that, so I can say: I like it 

Of course your statment is wrong also, build on Dawkins, without understand basic stories from the Bible.

Nontheless he is GOD, The God, supreme in every sense, so he can do, whatever he whishes to do.




> None of the gods or goddesses mentioned in the Vedas ever did anything that wicked.


Not at all... hahaha... 

Vedas are so gigantic that I deeply doubt, that you know them very well... 
One of most recognazable godess in the West is... Kali... probably I dont
have to write any more, because this name speaks for himself... 

Do you ever see christian picture like that:


dfghthtrjt.jpg 

So, don't tell me, that hinduism is good, because Bible always was against that kind of cults.

p.s. do you see my signature in that post? Because I don't.

----------


## Maleth

> The only thing unique about christianity, in my opinion, is that your god is depicted in your holy book as a dangerous sociopath who did many evil things, such as sending bears to kill little children who made fun of one of his prophets. Your god even killed his own son and brought him back to life in order to impress people - that was the act of a madman. None of the gods or goddesses mentioned in the Vedas ever did anything that wicked.


...........and what about the desolation of Samaria for being perceived as rebelling against her God had was stabbed with a sword and the baby in her womb was dashed to pieces + all pregnant women will be ripped up. (Hosea 16.13) How sick and macabre  :Wallbash:

----------


## Aberdeen

> ...........and what about the desolation of Samaria for being perceived as rebelling against her God had was stabbed with a sword and the baby in her womb was dashed to pieces + all pregnant women will be ripped up. (Hosea 16.13) How sick and macabre


Yes, we could think of many examples. But of course the purpose of discussing such things is not to bash people who embrace christianity but who understand and accept that not everyone agrees with them. Perhaps you would agree that the point is simply to point out that there is a great deal about that particular holy book that seems very strange and questionable to those of us who are looking at it from a logical rather than a faith perspective.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Wrong argument again!
> Noone ever said, that Jahwe are coming to every house as a man, especially, at one particular time every year.
> So, your thinking is wrong at the beginnig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course!
> Noone never claim that he exists in this universe, like a shoemaker doesn't live in shoes.
> ...


Your arguments seem to me to be very inconsistent, and I suspect that you don't understand the theological implications of taking the view that your creator god is absent from his creation. I also suspect that most people who have a good understanding of both Hindu and christian theology but who are looking at both from a perspective of logic and reason would conclude that christianity is much more simplistic than Hinduism and has a lot more theological weaknesses embedded in it. And for those of us who don't see anything sacred in your bible, having someone say that it is against something means nothing.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Your arguments seem to me to be very inconsistent, and I suspect that you don't understand the theological implications of taking the view that your creator god is absent from his creation. I also suspect that most people who have a good understanding of both Hindu and christian theology but who are looking at both from a perspective of logic and reason would conclude that christianity is much more simplistic than Hinduism and has a lot more theological weaknesses embedded in it. And for those of us who don't see anything sacred in your bible, having someone say that it is against something means nothing.


A God doesn't have to fall under the rules of human "theology" and understanding. Who are you to say a God separated from his creation doesn't make sense? It's pathetic in my mind that humans put their rules and understanding of the world onto spirituality. It contradicts the whole idea of the supernatural.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> 1. Christianity 2.1 billion 
> 2. Islam 1.3 billion 
> 3. Secular/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion 
> 4. Hinduism 900 million 
> 5. Chinese traditional religion 394 million 
> 6. Buddhism 376 million (see also buddhism by country) 
> 7. Primal indigenous 300 million 
> 8. African traditional and diasporic 100 million 
> 9. Sikhism 23 million 
> ...


The vast majority of those people are "followers", but in reality lean towards being agnostic. Listing those stats I think wrongly justify people to pretend that religious conservatives still run the world. Also, the argument that separation of a religion makes in illegitimate is outdated, comes from people who don't understand those religions, and is usually false. I know that in Christianity the Vatican and a hick church in South Dakota truly believe in the same religion.

----------


## LeBrok

> But I always was beliving in God. Not because someone taught me that, but because it is logical.


Wherever we go on this we find people believing in god, gods or spirits, voodoo, no mentioning super beings in UFO vessels. Whatever they believe it seams very "logical" to them. I'd say, if logic had anything to do with it, they logically would believe in exactly same thing, the only true thing. 

99% (if not more) of people believe in god(s) of their parents. I think we can find logic in it, but it has nothing to do with existence or not of true god(s).

----------


## LeBrok

> ...........and what about the desolation of Samaria for being perceived as rebelling against her God had was stabbed with a sword and the baby in her womb was dashed to pieces + all pregnant women will be ripped up. (Hosea 16.13) How sick and macabre


Why we don't have prophets in modern times?
Because we keep them locked in Psychiatric Institutions.
 :Laughing:

----------


## Maleth

> Why we don't have prophets in modern times?
> Because we keep them locked in Psychiatric Institutions.


 :Petrified:  we have grand Cathedrals, Mosques and Synagoges, I love the amazing arts, music and chants that go with it, even the bells bring warmth to my heart, but PLEASE not in the name of this madness. They make us kiss this literature and take oath on it, probably everyone have these psychotic teachings on the shelve somewhere and many baost that these books are the best sold in the world. For hundreds of years no one could question and still BULLIED in a BIG WAY in the Islamic world *Do people know what they are doing?*

----------


## Aberdeen

> A God doesn't have to fall under the rules of human "theology" and understanding. Who are you to say a God separated from his creation doesn't make sense? It's pathetic in my mind that humans put their rules and understanding of the world onto spirituality. It contradicts the whole idea of the supernatural.


As usual, you seem to have misunderstood what you read. I didn't say that a god that is separated from his creation doesn't make sense, I said I didn't think Rethel understood the theological implications of his claim that his god exists outside its creation. A god that is external to the universe will have a very different relationship to its creation than one that is part of its creation. One cannot argue that one has a meaningful personal relationship with a god that is not a part of this universe unless one wishes to ignore all logic and reason. Of course, that is exactly what many religious people do, and I don't take such people seriously.

----------


## Aberdeen

> The vast majority of those people are "followers", but in reality lean towards being agnostic. Listing those stats I think wrongly justify people to pretend that religious conservatives still run the world. Also, the argument that separation of a religion makes in illegitimate is outdated, comes from people who don't understand those religions, and is usually false. I know that in Christianity the Vatican and a hick church in South Dakota truly believe in the same religion.


Actually, the folks at the Vatican generally have extremely different core beliefs than the average member of a hick church in South Dakota, so while they may both say they practice the same religion, it looks to an outsider to be two different religions using some of the same terminology. The Catholic church doesn't teach fundamentalism or the idea that science contradicts their faith and most American fundies do believe that. The Catholic church teaches that the Pope is the head of the christian religion, and Protestants don't believe that. The Catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, while Protestants believe that there are only two. Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary physically ascended into heaven, and Protestants don't. Fundies usually believe that people have to be "born again" to go to heaven, but Catholics don't. Catholics believe that the baker made god, with the help of a priest (transubstantiation) whereas Protestants don't. And in fact some Protestant groups, such as Oneness Pentacostals, don't even believe in the trinity. So, are they actually practicing the same religion?

----------


## Sile

> Wherever we go on this we find people believing in god, gods or spirits, voodoo, no mentioning super beings in UFO vessels. Whatever they believe it seams very "logical" to them. I'd say, if logic had anything to do with it, they logically would believe in exactly same thing, the only true thing. 
> 
> 99% (if not more) of people believe in god(s) of their parents. I think we can find logic in it, but it has nothing to do with existence or not of true god(s).


IMO, religion is a personnel thing, not shared............the more your talk about religion or listen to clerics, priests etc, the more retarded and confused one gets

----------


## Fire Haired14

> As usual, you seem to have misunderstood what you read. I didn't say that a god that is separated from his creation doesn't make sense, I said I didn't think Rethel understood the theological implications of his claim that his god exists outside its creation. A god that is external to the universe will have a very different relationship to its creation than one that is part of its creation. One cannot argue that one has a meaningful personal relationship with a god that is not a part of this universe unless one wishes to ignore all logic and reason. Of course, that is exactly what many religious people do, and I don't take such people seriously.


IMO, you can makeup whatever you want about spirituality. It's open game. Of course there are clear boundaries, where eventually it doesn't make sense, but still alot of room for ideas.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Actually, the folks at the Vatican generally have extremely different core beliefs than the average member of a hick church in South Dakota, so while they may both say they practice the same religion, it looks to an outsider to be two different religions using some of the same terminology. The Catholic church doesn't teach fundamentalism or the idea that science contradicts their faith and most American fundies do believe that. The Catholic church teaches that the Pope is the head of the christian religion, and Protestants don't believe that. The Catholic church teaches that there are seven sacraments, while Protestants believe that there are only two. Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary physically ascended into heaven, and Protestants don't. Fundies usually believe that people have to be "born again" to go to heaven, but Catholics don't. Catholics believe that the baker made god, with the help of a priest (transubstantiation) whereas Protestants don't. And in fact some Protestant groups, such as Oneness Pentacostals, don't even believe in the trinity. So, are they actually practicing the same religion?


Those aren't core differences. The Bible mentions being "Born Again", all it means is you've asked forgiveness from God and have been saved. It's a the base of all of Christianity, and the Vatican believes in it(maybe with differnt wording). I'd say the main differences are cultural add ons over the last 2,000 years. My impression is Protestants want mostly whats only in the Bible(I know there are other books in the Catholic one), while Catholics take tradition seriously to(Pope, 7 instead of 2 sacraments, etc.). Most Protestants and Catholics say they are one church. Other differences aren't at the core, like disagreeing with evolution(not all science).

----------


## Rethel

Here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...y-and-religion

Maciamo wrote a definition: 

_Bible God (or Judeo-Christian God) : almighty and omniscient god that judges humans in their
daily life. This is by opposition to the passive Deist God, or gods from other religions (esp. polytheist)._

For what so long name. :Rolleyes: 

Isn't easier write simply: *Yahweh* or *Jehovah* or at least *Yhwh*?  :Good Job: 

Everyones will know that this is The God, God of the Biblie or God of Jews and Christians. :Thinking:

----------


## Maleth

> Everyones will know that this is The God, God of the Biblie or God of Jews and Christians.


Now dont rush too much!....there is much more in common between Islam and Judaism then Christianity. Remember that none of the others have a historical Jesus, a man that with a big sigh of relief contradicted the horrors of the old teachings (called the old testaments). Christians dont like to call it Change but they say 'Perfected'. Learn the scriptures of all monolithic religions then spot the difference ;)

----------


## Aberdeen

> Those aren't core differences. The Bible mentions being "Born Again", all it means is you've asked forgiveness from God and have been saved. It's a the base of all of Christianity, and the Vatican believes in it(maybe with differnt wording). I'd say the main differences are cultural add ons over the last 2,000 years. My impression is Protestants want mostly whats only in the Bible(I know there are other books in the Catholic one), while Catholics take tradition seriously to(Pope, 7 instead of 2 sacraments, etc.). Most Protestants and Catholics say they are one church. Other differences aren't at the core, like disagreeing with evolution(not all science).


So I guess differences in core beliefs don't matter to some people. John Knox would be horrified by that attitude.

I have no idea what you mean by "evolution (not all science)". Is it possible that you don't understand what the theory of evolution is all about? The theory of evolution simply explains that the reason plants and animals are so diverse is that species change and adapt in response to their environment, and that the present diversity of plants and animals was caused by a huge number of usually very small changes over the course of millions of years. And it's a theory, rather than being just a hypothesis, because it's supported by all of modern science and contradicted by none of it. Fundies dislike the theory of evolution because they believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all plants and animals currently in existence have been here since "the creation" but such beliefs contradict scientific facts. And some ideas that some people try to attach to the theory of evolution, such as "social Darwinism" actually have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> So I guess differences in core beliefs don't matter to some people. John Knox would be horrified by that attitude.
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "evolution (not all science)". Is it possible that you don't understand what the theory of evolution is all about? The theory of evolution simply explains that the reason plants and animals are so diverse is that species change and adapt in response to their environment, and that the present diversity of plants and animals was caused by a huge number of usually very small changes over the course of millions of years. And it's a theory, rather than being just a hypothesis, because it's supported by all of modern science and contradicted by none of it. Fundies dislike the theory of evolution because they believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all plants and animals currently in existence have been here since "the creation" but such beliefs contradict scientific facts. And some ideas that some people try to attach to the theory of evolution, such as "social Darwinism" actually have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.


I knew all that. Not all science is evolution, that was my point. I know what fundamentalist believe. And stop saying fundies. For once can you not be sarcastic and insulting? You argue for a tolerant human society, yet you're constantly intolerant and insulting people. In your mind the people you dis agree with(like fundies) are your enemies not people you work with to make a better world.

----------


## Aberdeen

> Here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...y-and-religion
> 
> Maciamo wrote a definition: 
> 
> _Bible God (or Judeo-Christian God) : almighty and omniscient god that judges humans in their
> daily life. This is by opposition to the passive Deist God, or gods from other religions (esp. polytheist)._
> 
> For what so long name.
> 
> ...


Maciamo made clear that he was speaking from a position of logic and reason, rather than from a position of faith. Some of us are incapable of believing something that contradicts reason. Those of us who approach things in such a manner may sometimes disagree with one another because of differences in our level of knowledge or differences in the way we interpret facts but we do not just take things on faith the way you seem to. It's just a difference in how one addresses reality, reason versus faith.

----------


## Aberdeen

> I knew all that. Not all science is evolution, that was my point. I know what fundamentalist believe. And stop saying fundies. For once can you not be sarcastic and insulting? You argue for a tolerant human society, yet you're constantly intolerant and insulting people. In your mind the people you dis agree with(like fundies) are your enemies not people you work with to make a better world.


I have no idea what you mean when you say "Not all science is evolution". It's true that some of modern science is about things other than evolutionary biology. Some of it is about cosmology or biogenesis, for example. But these processes are consistent with the idea of a world in which, once organic life appears, it's capable of evolving. 

I use the term "fundie" to refer to people who embrace certain ideas that are based on faith and that contradict reason, and I use the term because people know what the word means and I don't know why a common word abbreviation would upset you. The words "fundie" and "fundamentalist" are identical in meaning - they both refer to someone with a literalist religious viewpoint that contradicts reason. 

I have no idea where you got the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is being "insulting". That does not seem to me to be a reason based perspective.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I have no idea what you mean when you say "Not all science is evolution". It's true that some of modern science is about things other than evolutionary biology. Some of it is about cosmology or biogenesis, for example. But these processes are consistent with the idea of a world in which, once organic life appears, it's capable of evolving. 
> 
> I use the term "fundie" to refer to people who embrace certain ideas that are based on faith and that contradict reason, and I use the term because people know what the word means and I don't know why a common word abbreviation would upset you. The words "fundie" and "fundamentalist" are identical in meaning - they both refer to someone with a literalist religious viewpoint that contradicts reason. 
> 
> I have no idea where you got the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is being "insulting". That does not seem to me to be a reason based perspective.


You know exactly what I mean by not all science is evolution. There's no other way of interpreting that. When people, like you, are sarcastic with tone and phrases they get away with it. I have had times where you directly insulted people. You're lying, end of story. The fact you have never admitted fault and relentless never stop, is very sad.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Maciamo made clear that he was speaking from a position of logic and reason, rather than from a position of faith. Some of us are incapable of believing something that contradicts reason. Those of us who approach things in such a manner may sometimes disagree with one another because of differences in our level of knowledge or differences in the way we interpret facts but we do not just take things on faith the way you seem to. It's just a difference in how one addresses reality, reason versus faith.


If you're such a reasonable person why do you try to convince people of your lies, and think you're insults and sarcasm are justified? You really need to look your self in the mirror.

----------


## Aberdeen

> If you're such a reasonable person why do you try to convince people of your lies, and think you're insults and sarcasm are justified? You really need to look your self in the mirror.


I think you meant "your" rather than "you're". And I see no sarcasm or insults in what I write.

----------


## Rethel

> Now dont rush too much!....there is much more in common between Islam and Judaism then Christianity. Remember that none of the others have a historical Jesus, a man that with a big sigh of relief contradicted the horrors of the old teachings (called the old testaments). Christians dont like to call it Change but they say 'Perfected'. Learn the scriptures of all monolithic religions then spot the difference ;)


Maleth, Maciamo was written about Bible God (I hope that he meant: God who is describe in the Bible, not that Bible is God ;) ).
And Maciamo meant by this term Judeo-Christian God. So what has Islam anything to do with that? Bible's God this is simply Jehovah or Jahweh.

I assure you, that I know very well scriptures of all monotheistic religions.

----------


## Maleth

> Maleth, Maciamo was written about Bible God (I hope that he meant: God who is describe in the Bible, not that Bible is God ;) ).
> And Maciamo meant by this term Judeo-Christian God. So what has Islam anything to do with that? Bible's God this is simply Jehovah or Jahweh.
> 
> I assure you, that I know very well scriptures of all monotheistic religions.


Good and I understand it was your answer to Maciamo's past post which I did not notice. However the three religions stem from the same roots. Islam will always be relevant because of that. There are various passages to the name of God which shows the continuous inconsistency of Religions text. You can chose that god never really wanted a name too. Everyone can pick what they fancy. I know the Jehovas did. How about the one were Moses asked God what to call him and God replied "Indeed when I come to the children of Israel say to them "The God of your fathers has sent me to you and they say to me:- What is His name? God said that his name is *'I AM'* (Exodus 3:13)not Jehova and Jahwe and not other that is mentioned today

----------


## Rethel

> However the three religions stem from the same roots.


Let say that, ok.. ;)




> Islam will always be relevant because of that.


yeah, and disprooving himself also, because of that... :)




> You can chose that god never really wanted a name too.



Every thing has name. Even word God is a name. Kindname. Not forename.
Even in english this is hard to make a differecne between this two notions.
Some languages (and probably most of ancient) did't distinguish between
this two kinds of names. My language do this very well. But for the ancient
people it wasn,t so obvious. What they had in mind written a "name": first
name, last name, or maybe general name? It doesn't matter.




> How about the one


And how about the ~7000 timens where is written yhwh?




> were Moses asked God what to call him and God replied "Indeed when I come to the children of Israel say to them "The God of your fathers has sent me to you and they say to me:- What is His name? God said that his name is *'I AM'* (Exodus 3:13)


This is some kind of etymology of this name, because could it be so ancient, that even Moses
couldn't understand. For example LXX translate this place like Existing One. The same meaning
given to the name Strong concordance: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3068.htm I would even say,
that this is some kind of Absolute-Being meaning - Superdeity, omnipotent, omnipresence, ever
existing, allmighty and so on - some one, who is above evrything, even better than any other god.

Besides, every good educated atheist, christian or jew have no doubts, that Yahweh
is the God of the Biblie. This whole nonsens about No-name or "I'm" instead the name
it is only a trinitarian dogma created only for one perpuose - to prove trinity - but this
is very unwise kind of prooving. Every religion dictionary or ecyclopedia will tell you the
same - that Yahweh is the God of the Bible, maybe with misterious name, but still. 
And it doesn't matter if word 'name' means in that situation personal name, surname,
forename, describing name, or kind-name - becouse he is only one of his kind.  :Good Job: 




> not Jehova and Jahwe and not other that is mentioned today


And where you have missed the whole context?  :Petrified: 
Above that verse and after him you have Yhwh over and over again.

----------


## Maleth

> And where you have missed the whole context? 
> Above that verse and after him you have Yhwh over and over again.


But it clearly says God said I am, did God give instructions for change after that? and why would he?

----------


## Rethel

> But it clearly says God said I am, did God give instructions for change after that? and why would he?


So, only one verse seems to be true, and another 31.000 not... 

Wow! 

God siad that he is, of course, becouse he really is... 
Pagan gods didn't exist - what he prooved a couple of weeks later...

And... why God cannot etymologize his name?

----------


## Maleth

> So, only one verse seems to be true, and another 31.000 not... 
> 
> Wow! 
> 
> 
> 
> God siad that he is, of course, becouse he really is... 
> Pagan gods didn't exist - what he prooved a couple of weeks later...
> 
> And... why God cannot etymologize his name?


Stop making it complicated and try to justify something so straight forward and obvious. Well all the different names just show how man made religion is. Why all this effort to justify something so obvious, and for what?.

Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" 14God said to Moses,* "I AM WHO I AM"*; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,* 'I AM* has sent me to you.'"15God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.'* This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations. 

*Who ever invented any other name did not even care what god had to say
So simple.

----------


## Rethel

> Who ever invented any other name did not even care what god had to say
> So simple.


Ok, if you will feel yourself better...

----------


## Sile

Read post #79

Ones Religion or not is private

----------


## Melancon

> Stop making it complicated and try to justify something so straight forward and obvious. Well all the different names just show how man made religion is. Why all this effort to justify something so obvious, and for what?.
> 
> Who ever invented any other name did not even care what god had to say
> So simple.


Yet again another flamboyant, ostentatious and clingy; misinformed analytical misinterpretation by the feminine-acting, possibly homosexual; sheltered from-the real-world, mama's boy Maleth.

----------


## mihaitzateo

It would be something decent that atheists and non-believers do not start to call names other people who are non-atheists.
It is easy to blame the religion for what people are doing.
Well most Bolsheviks were atheists and Bolshevisms is known for so many atrocities.
Can you people who are atheists explain this?
Not to mention that World War II was not a religious war,it had to do with other things.

----------


## Angela

> Yet again another flamboyant, ostentatious and clingy; misinformed analytical misinterpretation by the feminine-acting, possibly homosexual; sheltered from-the real-world, mama's boy Maleth.


Leave people's sexual orientation out of it, or you're _out_. Comprenez?

----------


## sparkey

> Leave people's sexual orientation out of it, or you're _out_. Comprenez?


I personally couldn't leave that one without an infraction. He's out.

----------


## Maleth

> It would be something decent that atheists and non-believers do not start to call names other people who are non-atheists.
> It is easy to blame the religion for what people are doing.
> Well most Bolsheviks were atheists and Bolshevisms is known for so many atrocities.
> Can you people who are atheists explain this?
> Not to mention that World War II was not a religious war,it had to do with other things.


One does not justify the other....that is for sure. The only difference is some people do atrocities because they say they *personally* believe in them on a human level, like in the many non religious atrocities including the ones you mentioned including Nazism and others of course. 

While religious atrocities are justified through a higher divine authority (the Kind of its not me who is saying it but the supreme). Having said that many Religions (including Islam) do strive in their own way to deal with a softer approach with various interpretations to neutralize the more violent aspects of religions. But one has to understand that its not an easy thing to do when its all Black on white. Probably if we go according to texts and interpretations Christianity has the easiest way out through the perfectioning exercise visa vi extremists books from the so called 'old covenant'. However this did not stop Christianity from performing atrocities in the name of Religion (mostly in the past).And I dont need to say but look what is happening today with the type of Islam focusing on the violent side of its texts.

----------


## Tomenable

This is a very interesting but lengthy (over 50 pages) discussion on God's existence or lack of such: 

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542927

----------


## mihaitzateo

This thread is non-sense.
And I could not care more or less about what Maciamo thinks about God existence.
All those atheists who think Christians are dumb,should stop use alternative current since the methods of generating and transporting alternative current are coming from Nicolas Tesla ,who a very mystical person,Christian orthodox.
Let us take on the other way,how many of the people from the world ever heard of Maciamo?

Now,how many heard about Newton who was also Christian?
I think all people learn in the school about Newton,at physics.
So,you Atheists, I am not trying to impose what I believe to you,while you are aggressive and try to impose to other people to not believe in God and so on.

----------


## Maleth

> So,you Atheists, I am not trying to impose what I believe to you,while you are aggressive and try to impose to other people to not believe in God and so on.


Good on you as unfortunately in 2015 we have Religious bullies murdering people in the name of religion (or what they perceive as the righteous way of god), but im not aware of any atheist doing the same. Hope this will not be necessary any more in the near future.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Good on you as unfortunately in 2015 we have Religious bullies murdering people in the name of religion (or what they perceive as the righteous way of god), but im not aware of any atheist doing the same. Hope this will not be necessary any more in the near future.


You need to think of something new, because almost everything you use religious extremist as an argument to caste general negativity against religion. This is the exception not the rule, and doesn't represent any religious people here.

----------


## Maleth

> You need to think of something new, because almost everything you use religious extremist as an argument to caste general negativity against religion. This is the exception not the rule, and doesn't represent any religious people here.


I dont think its a matter of thinking, its a matter of analizing facts and be bold enough to face them without too much beating round the bush, as the proverb says. Lets face it not many people are willing to give *rational* and *logical* explanations. However I do understand the frustration for genuine peace loving people who for some weird reason find it difficult to disassociate themselves with violent religions texts. At the end of the day its just a matter of choice. I assure you I did not invent them ;)

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I dont think its a matter of thinking, its a matter of analizing facts and be bold enough to face them without too much beating round the bush, as the proverb says. Lets face it not many people are willing to give *rational* and *logical* explanations. However I do understand the frustration for genuine peace loving people who for some weird reason find it difficult to disassociate themselves with violent religions texts. At the end of the day its just a matter of choice. I assure you I did not invent them ;)


This what I mean, you need to get rid of this biased attitude. You're not going to come up with good conclusions, because you already have one set no matter what the evidence says. The fact is most religious people are not violent-nuts and most religions don't support violent-nuts. You have very offensive and inaccurate assumptions about religious people that need to change.

----------


## Maleth

> This what I mean, you need to get rid of this biased attitude. You're not going to come up with good conclusions, because you already have one set no matter what the evidence says. The fact is most religious people are not violent-nuts and most religions don't support violent-nuts. You have very offensive and inaccurate assumptions about religious people that need to change.


I know whats written in religious text. Do you? You and everyone else can read it too. Its even claimed to be undisputable and also holy. Are you suggesting I should ignore the offensive religious literature and yet be part of it? What is the evidence?

----------


## sparkey

This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.

To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them. That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I know whats written in religious text. Do you? You and everyone else can read it too. Its even claimed to be undisputable and also holy. Are you suggesting I should ignore the offensive religious literature and yet be part of it? What is the evidence?


A few texts don't make an entire religion and its followers violent-nuts. The vast majority of religious people don't follow whatever those few texts say, or think they have a good reason in other texts not to. The everyday religious person is against such texts. You know this. Don't allow a few texts cause you to have unjustified views about the millions of followers.

----------


## Maleth

> This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.
> 
> To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them. That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.


In my opinion very few people who claim to be part of any religion go into any depth to understand the god/gods of their religion, very often (to keep it simple) is that they find god/gods a supreme being an illusionary perception in the eyes of an atheist, were one can make some kind of ritual to seek forgiveness or acquire some kind of power and blame the ills of someone or a society on ways not approved by the supreme being. In many cases a devil is also created were one can pour all the blame on this other dark power who is in a constant struggle with the supreme being. 

Texts however matter immensely as its the road map of any religion which is based on a particular god/gods of the believers. In my opinion god/gods are defined as a reflection of a persons thought and inner struggles woven with the mysteries that humans still cannot comprehend that were much more accentuated when communities had more time on their hands to ponder and think without having to focus on where the next meal would be coming from.

----------


## Maleth

> The vast majority of religious people don't follow whatever those few texts say, or think they have a good reason in other texts not to. The everyday religious person is against such texts. You know this. Don't allow a few texts cause you to have unjustified views about the millions of followers.


Nice way to see it, so maybe the so called 'holy books' should be altered to make more sense and be less hypocritical, without having the obsession as often echoed that none of it can be changed. Its either one or the other, no real need for the hysteria one sees when religious matters are discussed.

----------


## LeBrok

> This is degenerating into a debate over whether religious people behave well and have done good things. Although the effect of religiosity on behavior is a worthwhile subject on its own, it's completely tangential to the question of Maciamo's (9 year old) refutation of God's existence, which deals entirely with the nature of the universe and not with the nature of believers.
> 
> To me, effectively any appeal to universal properties to prove or refute the existence of god(s) will end up resulting in people talking past each other. Of course an atheist is likely to view universal properties differently than a theist. Gods in general have unfalsifiability baked into their mythos. So what if an atheist claims that a god seems to fit poorly into the universe, or seems to violate the laws of nature? The theist can always respond to such a claim by saying that their god is beyond nature, or does things that are beyond human comprehension. The most interesting question, then, isn't whether or not any god fits what we know about the universe. That discussion won't get us anywhere. The more interesting question is why *gods are defined as they are, and what that tells us about those who define them.* That gets into interesting questions of why people believe what they believe, and from there we can start deducing whether it's more likely that gods are real, or if they're a product of human invention.


To play devil's advocate, I'd say there always will be similarity between god and human, because human was created in god's image. And not because human invented god.

----------


## sparkey

> To play devil's advocate, I'd say there always will be similarity between god and human, because human was created in god's image. And not because human invented god.


The idea of man being created in god's image does span multiple religions, and seems to me to be a common way for religions to explain why their gods are almost always personable. I think it's absolutely possible to tackle this directly, by asking which is more likely: a god created man in his image and man has since correctly imagined god(s) as personable, or man creates gods as personable through natural tendencies? The easy answer to me is to appeal to evolution, which clearly shows that human ancestors were not always personable, and therefore man does not derive such an attribute from any god. And even if we dismiss that by arguing that a god could have used evolution and other natural conditions as a means to developing man to become godlike, there's still the question of why the properties of gods differ so much across cultures. If people naturally tend to imagine gods as personable supernatural entities, I think we'd expect exactly what we see: A multitude of stories to explain all sorts of phenomena and to satisfy answers about the human condition. If a god created man in his image, what we see raises more questions than it answers, like why almost all people would get it right to imagine god(s) as personable, while most get the related stories completely wrong.

----------


## LeBrok

> The idea of man being created in god's image does span multiple religions, and seems to me to be a common way for religions to explain why their gods are almost always personable. I think it's absolutely possible to tackle this directly, by asking which is more likely: a god created man in his image and man has since correctly imagined god(s) as personable, or man creates gods as personable through natural tendencies? The easy answer to me is to appeal to evolution, which clearly shows that human ancestors were not always personable, and therefore man does not derive such an attribute from any god. And even if we dismiss that by arguing that a god could have used evolution and other natural conditions as a means to developing man to become godlike, there's still the question of *why the properties of gods differ so much across cultures*


It excludes existence of one god, but flows with idea of many unique gods very well. As gods differ from one another so do religions and human beliefs.







> If people naturally tend to imagine gods as personable supernatural entities, I think we'd expect exactly what we see: A multitude of stories to explain all sorts of phenomena and to satisfy answers about the human condition. If a god created man in his image, what we see raises more questions than it answers, like why almost all people would get it right to imagine god(s) as personable, while most get the related stories completely wrong.


Sometimes I think that multitude of Super Heroes in today's comics and movies points the the subcontinents base of human spirituality. They resemble so much the gods of Greek, Romans, Hinduism and almost all polytheistic religions. Gods with human characters and emotions, combined with super powers of gods/super heroes. We might be dealing with same phenomenon under different name.
Who knows, possibly first gods took shape from story telling talents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Once the fire was tamed, their long evenings around the fire gave them opportunity for entertainment, singing and story telling. The times when first singers, actors, idols and preachers took the stage.

Was Iliad a first comic book, where Superhero, and half god, Hercules saved Greeks and Civilization?

----------


## sparkey

> It excludes existence of one god, but flows with idea of many unique gods very well. As gods differ from one another so do religions and human beliefs.


I'd hasten to add that we don't just see many different gods, but we see many different _contradictory_ gods. It would definitely be a challenge to the atheist position if all of the world's gods could be easily reconciled. Of course, there have been attempts to reconcile them nonetheless, like saying that different aspects of different gods present themselves to different cultures; some gods are more jealous than others and like to convince their followers that they're the only god; that there are evil forces as well that manipulate human belief; etc. But I'm looking for the simplest explanation, and clearly we're deviating from that.




> Sometimes I think that multitude of Super Heroes in today's comics and movies points the the subcontinents base of human spirituality. They resemble so much the gods of Greek, Romans, Hinduism and almost all polytheistic religions. Gods with human characters and emotions, combined with super powers of gods/super heroes. We might be dealing with same phenomenon under different name.
> Who knows, possibly first gods took shape from story telling talents of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Once the fire was tamed, their long evenings around the fire gave them opportunity for entertainment, singing and story telling. The times when first singers, actors, idols and preachers took the stage.
> 
> Was Iliad a first comic book, where Superhero, and half god, Hercules saved Greeks and Civilization?


I think you're onto something here. Is it a coincidence that one of the most popular superheroes out there right now is _Thor_?

----------


## Voyager

God Exist simply because we Exist. It 's only a question of pure logic.
First of All, we have two choices: The world is insane or not?

If we choose it's insane, we are may be mentaly ill, the game is over. 

If we choose no the World is not insane then the World is completly explainable. This implies the causality law: one effect has at least one cause. Then the ultimate cause is God. 

God is cause of itself by definition otherwise the World is insane or completly inexplainable. Since we choose it's completly explainable, God is necessarily cause of itself.

God is little bit like Infinity in Maths. We need infinity otherwise Math is not completly explainable. Same rationale, We need God otherwise the World is not completly explainable or Reasonable except if we are illogical or insane.
My thinking of the Day.

----------


## LeBrok

> God Exist simply because we Exist. It 's only a question of pure logic.
> 1st we have two choices: 1 The world is insane or not? If we choose it's insane, you are may be mentaly ill and the game is over. 
> If we choose no then the World is explainable this imply the causality law, one effect has at least one cause. Then the ultimate cause is God. 
> God is cause of itself by definition otherwise the World is insane or inexplainable. Since we choose it's explainable, God is necessarily cause of itself. 
> God is little bit the Infinity in Maths. We need infinity otherwise Math is not completly explainable. Same We need Gos otherwise the World is not completly explainable except if you are insane.


By this logic, same applies to God, if you can't explain God's existence it doesn't exist. There is also a serious glitch here. We can physically prove world's existence but not God's existence. We can easily claim that Santa Claus with natural powers created Universe for purpose of making people happy. We are in no position to prove or disprove that claim. In this case let's stick to what we can measure.

----------


## Voyager

> By this logic, same applies to God, if you can't explain God's existence it doesn't exist. There is also a serious glitch here. We can physically prove world's existence but not God's existence. We can easily claim that Santa Claus with natural powers created Universe for purpose of making people happy. We are in no position to prove or disprove that claim. In this case let's stick to what we can measure.


The first question you have to ask yourself is : "am I Insane or not?" or "Am I someone reasonable or not? If your answer is Yes I am Insane the World is inexplainable completly , then you are right God existence is useless. 
But since you say the world exist and is Reasonable then automaticaly God existence must logicaly be. 

Then if you say I can't explain God it 's equivalent to say that the World is not logical or insane for me.

It 's like Maths. I give you an example, We suppose Math is obviously logical and Right and not Insane.
Then Let's take the real interval [0 1], this interval exist then there exist a smaller ones include in [0 1].
Here the existence of the infinitly small interval is necessary because if it doesn't exist then any interval bigger doesn't exist and finaly any Real interval can't exist, Math should be false. 
This is obviously not the case then the Infinitly small interval must exist.

Curiously the infinitly small interval is the only interval smaler than itself. Very similar to God cause of itself in the proof of its existence.

----------


## LeBrok

> The first question you have to ask yourself is : "am I Insane or not?" or "Am I someone reasonable or not? If your answer is Yes I am Insane the World is inexplainable completly , then you are right God existence is useless. 
> But since you say the world exist and is Reasonable then automaticaly God existence must logicaly be.


 Actually I find such "logic" insane. Not only it doesn't make slightest sense, it also renders all the atheists insane. Is this some kind of elaborate insult of yours?
Do you mean you need a world to be created on purpose by a conscious person/god, in order to exist? You would need to prove that our world has a purpose to support your supposition.

----------


## Voyager

> Do you mean you need a *world to be created on purpose* by a *conscious person/god*, in order *to exist*? You would need to prove that our world has a purpose to support your supposition.


In my proof of existence of God, no word of Creation, No word of Purpose.
I start with just 3 Words: One word for Logic, One for our Existence and One Word for God.
If our Existence is Logic then God Exist. 
You need at Least these 3 Words to Start, You retrieve just one of these 3 words and the proof breaks down.
Retrieve Logic then it 's over, Retrieve our Existence then any proof is useless, retrieve God then No existence and No Logic either. It's very similar to the Trinity concept of the Christian.

I don't see any purpose in the proof. Purpose appears when you wonder why the world is so complex. In my proof I didn't mention if the World is complex or not. It exist that 's all. World could be a pure Chaos, Logicaly you still need God existence. 
I don't mention Creation, Creation suppose a beginning , there is no beginning , no end with God as we have seen. God is logicaly cause of itself. It's like you are saying that there is a biggest number in Maths , this is not true. The biggest thing in Math is infinite but is it a number like 1 or 2. Note that the infinite is the only element bigger than itself, similar to God 's properties. 
Conciousness is rather complex to define, I don't use this term either. I am not sure Logic implies conciousness. Logic is supposed to be independantly, even if you are concious or not. As I said, if there is no Logic, if our existence is not Logic or Reasonable or unexplainable, Game is Over.
Let me go back to the Logic Brick of the Proof. You can't deny that the World is Reasonable because in this case you are sure of Nothing and it's useless to understand it. You can garbage all the Humanity production, all the Humanity is a non-sense and collapse.

----------


## LeBrok

> In my proof of existence of God, no word of Creation, No word of Purpose.
> I start with just 3 Words: One word for Logic, One for our Existence and One Word for God.
> If our Existence is Logic then God Exist. 
> You need at Least these 3 Words to Start, You retrieve just one of these 3 words and the proof breaks down.
> Retrieve Logic then it 's over, Retrieve our Existence then any proof is useless, retrieve God then No existence and No Logic either. It's very similar to the *Trinity concept of the Christian*.


Not just trinity, but you also took the word concept from them. 1 *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, .*





> I don't mention Creation, Creation suppose a beginning , there is no beginning , no end with God as we have seen. God is logicaly cause of itself. It's like you are saying that there is a biggest number in Maths , this is not true. The biggest thing in Math is infinite but is it a number like 1 or 2. Note that the infinite is the only element bigger than itself, similar to God 's properties. 
> Conciousness is rather complex to define, I don't use this term either. I am not sure Logic implies conciousness. Logic is supposed to be independantly, even if you are concious or not. As I said, if there is no Logic, if our existence is not Logic or Reasonable or unexplainable, Game is Over.


Are you saying that God and the World is one and both always existed?





> Let me go back to the Logic Brick of the Proof. You can't deny that the World is Reasonable because in this case you are sure of Nothing and it's useless to understand it.


 I don't get you. There is logical god and reasonable world but with no purpose? Why do you need logical god then? We could have a random god as well, who just does stuff for no reason.





> You can garbage all the Humanity production, all the Humanity is a non-sense and collapse.


Nope, we just shrink in numbers and go live in caves, like HGs did mare few thousand years ago. Unless you will take word humanity away from them? 7 billion or 1,000 people on Earth is just the size of species, but the species still exists.

----------


## Voyager

> Not just trinity, but you also took the word concept from them. 1 *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, .*


I agree , we can find every parts of my proof in the Christian Philosophy. St John said at the very begining was the "Logos". I do the same. I suspect Like Frederic Lenoir in his very interesting book " Comment Jesus est devenu Dieu" that the 1st christian were in contact with philosophical works etither Greek or something else in Alexandria Library since destroyed (See Philon d'Alexandrie)




> Are you saying that God and the World is one and both always existed?


 "Always" refers to Time. I don't mention Time. They are Timeless. The only link between God and our World is Creation or God cause our World to exist. 




> I don't get you. There is logical god and reasonable world but with no purpose? Why do you need logical god then? We could have a random god as well, who just does stuff for no reason.


 We need our World to be logical otherwise it's point less to understand it. It's our first and only hypothesis. Logos must be First. God is not a person with a purpose . God in my proof is just an entity but this entity must exist otherwise our existence is not reasonable or Logicable also this entity has the property to be cause of itself unlike us.

----------


## LeBrok

> I agree , we can find every parts of my proof in the Christian Philosophy. St John said at the very begining was the "Logos". I do the same. I suspect Like Frederic Lenoir in his very interesting book " Comment Jesus est devenu Dieu" that the 1st christian were in contact with philosophical works etither Greek or something else in Alexandria Library since destroyed (See Philon d'Alexandrie)


 Though I believe you are more agnostic than Christian in your beliefs, right?




> "Always" refers to Time. I don't mention Time. They are Timeless. The only link between God and our World is Creation or God cause our World to exist.


Than world has a beginning. If you assume world had a beginning then why not god.





> We need our World to be logical otherwise it's point less to understand it. It's our first and only hypothesis. Logos must be First.


 Ok, are you saying that world is for us to understand? In this case you are implying that our existence have a purpose, right? Were we planned by god, or just happened that we popped up on this world coincidently?

The consequences are very contrasting:
1. If God created us on purpose, it also means that world has a purpose - it was created for people to exist in. It would also mean that God has at least one purpose, to create world, then create people.
2. If we are here coincidently, like a side effect of physics, then we are not here to understand anything, world included. In this case why would God care if it made a logical world or not?




> God is not a person with a purpose


 Yes, but is he doing things on purpose. What is in your mind a purpose of the world?




> God in my proof is just an entity but this entity must exist otherwise our existence is not reasonable or Logicable


Are you saying we exist on purpose?
What is a logical existence of a mouse or cyanobacteria?

----------


## Voyager

> Though I believe you are more agnostic than Christian in your beliefs, right?


I just said that world is Reasonable meaning that we can understand it. I am a theist not agnostic. Agnostic means that we can't decide the God existence problem , it 's the opposite, The Logic decide for us that the existence of a Creator is logicaly True.




> Than world has a beginning. If you assume world had a beginning then why not god.


Beginning not in Time, Beginning of causal chain. for example a beginning of a demonstration is not beginning of Time. 





> Ok, are you saying that world is for us to understand? In this case you are implying that our existence have a purpose, right? Were we planned by god, or just happened that we popped up on this world coincidently?


I still don't see where you are seeing any Goal or Purpose? My very first assumption is:" in our World, any effect has at least one cause". Who has a goal here? There is no Who, no Goal in this very first assumption. But since you agree with this very first assumption, then an entity like God must logicaly exist as a logical consequence of the 1st assumption. No purpose from end to end. 
If you like, our World implies God as God implies our World. Where is the purpose of Who, of What, since each is a consequence of the other? 

Sorry but, There is definitly no purpose of any God at this stage of the Logos, no Time either.

----------


## LeBrok

> I just said that world is Reasonable meaning that we can understand it.


 It only proofs logic and reason of humans and existence of measurable universe, but not existence of god.




> I am a theist not agnostic. Agnostic means that we can't decide the God existence problem , it 's the opposite, The Logic decide for us that the existence of a Creator is logicaly True.


Interesting that even the most logical man ever, Albert Einstein, didn't come up with this supposition.




> Beginning not in Time, Beginning of causal chain. for example a beginning of a demonstration is not beginning of Time.


Too convoluted to be of any use in understanding.






> I still don't see where you are seeing any Goal or Purpose? My very first assumption is:" in our World, any effect has at least one cause". Who has a goal here? *There is no Who,* no Goal in this very first assumption.


 What about God? You are assuming it didn't have a goal and yet it created the physical world of trillion galaxies and life in it. Perhaps from boredom?
Obviously by "Who" we refer to conscious and logical entity. "Conscious" meaning entity realising its own existence and powers (attributes).

Here are the consequences of existence of logical and conscious God:

If this conscious and logical being, does something, there have to be a reason behind such action. Logical being doesn't do random things, right? Logical being would rather do nothing, no action, than do random and senseless action and things. The reason could be sense of esthetics behind decision to create a beautiful universe. Could be boredom and need of some action. Could be a need for other conscious being like people who will admire and serve him. Or whatever the reason and logic is, denotes purpose for the Universe. The consequence goes like this. God->purpose (thought)->action (word)->universe, otherwise God-> no purpose (though)->no action (word)->no universe

But if you take away a reason and purpose from the world existence, it pretty much negates existence of God and creation of Universe. Unless the Universe always existed together with God. But in this case God didn't need to exist for the Universe to be. In this case, no reason or purpose needed for world's existence either. And this is pretty much how I see it.

----------


## Voyager

> It only proofs logic and reason of humans and existence of measurable universe, but not existence of god.
> 
> Interesting that even the most logical man ever, Albert Einstein, didn't come up with this supposition.


I am not sure Einstein was agnostic, he said he was not an atheist. he said also that "God doesn't play dice" against Quantum Mechanics of Niels Bohr. Then he was convinced of a God existence.
Niels Bohr answered Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do" :Innocent:

----------


## gyms

What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to _“a superior spirit”_, _”a superior mind”_, _"a spirit vastly superior to men”_, _”a veneration for this force”_ etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world – a supernatural creative intelligence. Further confirmation that Einstein believed in a transcendent God comes from his conversations with his friends. David Ben-Gurion, the former Prime Minister of Israel, records Einstein saying _“There must be something behind the energy.”_[17] And the distinguished physicist Max Born commented, _“He did not think religious belief a sign of stupidity, not unbelief a sign of intelligence.”_[18] Therefore on Dawkins’ own definition, Einstein is _not_ an atheist. On one point however Dawkins is correct: Einstein did not believe in a personal God, who answers prayers and interferes in the universe. But he did believe in an intelligent mind or spirit, which created the universe with its immutable laws.

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-ei...believe-in-god


Einstein actually said is:_“I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.”_[20]_“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”_[21]_"There is harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, yet there are people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me to support such views."_[22]

----------


## LeBrok

> I am not sure Einstein was agnostic, he said he was not an atheist. he said also that "God doesn't play dice" against Quantum Mechanics of Niels Bohr. Then he was convinced of a God existence.
> Niels Bohr answered Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do"


I meant that if your "proof" was so logical as you claim, people like Einstein and Bohr would have discovered it, and given us the definition and maybe an equation.

----------


## Voyager

> I meant that if your "proof" was so logical as you claim, people like Einstein and Bohr would have discovered it, and given us the definition and maybe an equation.


It's not my proof at all. A very similar proof was given by Artistote 4th cent. BC (the unmoved mover)and St Thomas d'Aquin. So it 's known long time ago. I suspect that the 1st Christians knew such rationale with the Library of Alexandria completly destroyed few centuries after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

----------


## Dinarid

This proves nothing to me. I believe that we cannot properly understand God; we cannot explain everything with our known rules of the universe.

----------


## Voyager

> This proves nothing to me. I believe that we cannot properly understand God; we cannot explain everything with our known rules of the universe.


The proof works if you believe, at least, that we are able to understand the world. If you believe it's not possible to understand God for example, It's similar to say that we cannot understand all the Universe since God is part of All the Universe then it's obviously useless for you to find any logic in the Universe. You are only sure of Nothing. The God existence is not logically necessary for people in such case. It's may be necessary on socially, polically, emotionally grounds but not rationally thinking. To believe that we cannot understand All the Universe may lead to unrational and morally insane behaviours as we can see in some religion since All could not be explained then All, including the unacceptable, could be justified on any kind of grounds.

----------


## Korbyn

Ancient cultures usually worshiped the Sun or nature. So to me, that means they saw nature and the universe as God.

----------


## Sile

Is it not about time that national Governments *force* that religions of today ensure gender equality within each religion. Clearly the anti-female religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the main ones that need to be fixed.

----------

