The Ingenious design of Religion - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

s3ood · 03-21-2007, 12:10 PM

I’ve been a long time reader, but never really had the chance to contribute, or maybe ask a question or two in the forum. I guess today is as good as any. I am 23 years old, and like many 23 year olds, I am only beginning to understand very few of the things that I did not for a while now. One of those things is of course the existence of God, which brings me to my topic of discussion.
I was born and raised a Muslim, which isn’t really relevant to what I am going to ask but I just thought I’d mention that I am still a “believer”. What I want to talk about is regarding my newest chapter of “my” book of revelations. Now I am sure to some of you this is not new information, others might of considered it but never really put any emphasis or extra thought to it, but right now it’s all I can think of.

I can sum up my question, my thesis and my answer all in one sentence, which is as follows: Can you prove or disapprove the existence of God?

Can you? I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that you cannot. And here’s why, let’s take one of the “Strongest” arguments that many theologians, regardless of religion, have came up with. There are of course many, but for the purpose of my point let’s take the “look into the miracles of nature” argument. While that argument does stand as a clear message of just how marvelous the world around is, it does not prove that there is a God, it just proves that the sun can rise up in the morning and dawn in the evening in perfect timing every day of the year, that a women can give birth and her body can adapt to very complicated changes to insure the best environment for child birth…etc etc etc. These examples are indeed miracles of nature, but are not concrete evidence of the existence of God. Just like that argument can be used to prove the existence of God it can also be used to disapprove his existence, as a theoretical approach. However, it is not concrete.
Which brings me to the name of my topic, then if this is fact, and the argument can go both ways, then how is religion ingenious here exactly and how is it related to why and how God exists?

But before I can answer that question, let me just add, one of the many arguments atheists use to disapprove the existence of God. If God does exist? then how come he doesn't want us to know?

Let me try to answer those questions with an example. Let’s again imagine for the purpose of my point that God created some sort of sign on earth. Lets also just say that this sign was “indisputable” assuming that God has the infinite powers and resources, then this sign or creation would basically be a piece of cake. The purpose of the sign would be the following “I am your God, I exist, this my indisputable sign of my existence, worship me because that is why I created you” Again this sign or creation would not be some sort of book or human or whatever it would be an everlasting immortal sign that cannot be changed or disputed.

What would happen? Well many things I am sure, but the majority of the people would be believers, no doubt there will be nay-sayers, but that’s not the point I want to discuss. My point would be had this sign existed, and then it would defy the whole rules of faith and final judgment. Faith is based on believing and God states that he wants us to believe in him blindly and nothing else. So having the sign would make us all believers while the rest of us would clearly just be people trying to lie to themselves or are mentally challenged, since the sign is clear and indisputable in this hypothetical situation. With the point being, nobody would be special we would all believe in God, but in various degrees.

So here’s the real deal. While the validity of the reasoning I just gave of why God doesn't want us to know he exist, in an obvious way. Is obviously a disputed argument, again this is just what some religions argue. But regardless of that even if that wasn't the case and God has another reason why he does not want us to know he exists in an obvious way beside fate, then what is it?

I know my argument is not exactly concrete myself, I clearly need more examples and perhaps more points of reasoning to reach a solid and plausible conclusion, that is where you guys and gals come in. Which is what I hope to discuss, what do you think?

I hope I made some sense, I tend to wander off sometimes, and basically what I am trying to say is the absence of truth is not the truth of absence that is where my dilemma stands.

politicophile · 03-21-2007, 01:04 PM

two characters

DaveOrion · 03-21-2007, 01:15 PM

There's always an opposite side to this debate, many scientists believed in God, included Einstein. I find his quotes so true and enlightening.

Belief in God?
Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html

Willravel · 03-21-2007, 01:30 PM

Momentary correction: Einstein was not a believer in god. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

The_Jazz · 03-21-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Momentary correction: Einstein was not a believer in god. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

To play Devil's Advocate: evidence? DaveMatrix has quotes - where are yours disproving what's above?

Willravel · 03-21-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

To play Devil's Advocate: evidence? DaveMatrix has quotes - where are yours disproving what's above?

Sorry, I figured it was common knowledge. Here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Einstein, "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", 1941

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Einstein

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

More information available at: http://einsteinandreligion.com/
I would also suggest that you read Albert Einstein: The Human Side

s3ood · 03-21-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

If this is indeed our position on WMD's and unicorns, how would we justify having a completely different standard for our beliefs about God?

Thats a very valid point, but it still doesn't completely negate the whole idea, I mean unicorns might have existed :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Is it possible to construct a plausible argument to explain why God would hide from his creations? Why would he create rational beings like humans and then insist that they find knowledge of God only through faith?

Dude you hit the nail on the head, I couldn't of described it any better, this is exactly the source of why I am thinking so much about it, it just doesn't make sense yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

There's always an opposite side to this debate, many scientists believed in God

I always find it comforting to put my faith in people smarter than me .. but maybe this matter is much more delicate than that. But your right, I did find them very inspiring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Sorry, I figured it was common knowledge.

I always thought he was Jewish? I remember reading more quotes, not sure of their validity though, about him arguing the existence of God though.

Willravel · 03-21-2007, 04:31 PM

He was raised Jewish, but changed to what can loosely be called a weak atheist or agnostic atheist when he was in his late teens or early 20s. His 'faith' was in the beauty of science and the universe.

DaveOrion · 03-21-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

I can sum up my question, my thesis and my answer all in one sentence, which is as follows: Can you prove or disapprove the existence of God?

The answer is simple. The theists can't prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of the atheists, and the atheists can's disprove His existence to the satisfaction of the theists. Its always a stalemate.

Some may go on and on in an attempt to prove their point, but long posts don't prove anything except ones persistence. Its a personal choice, so I'll tell you exactly what I told my daughter. Decide for yourself. Weigh both sides carefully, gather as much information as you can, and make up your own mind. Don't believe me, your friends, books, or lectures, but approach them all with an open mind, then make your decision. If it feels right for you, if your heart says this is it, then that's whats for you.

jorgelito · 03-21-2007, 05:29 PM

I think Einstein went back and forth during his lifetime causing some confusion.

DaveOrion · 03-21-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I think Einstein went back and forth during his lifetime causing some confusion.

This seems to be a logical conclusion. I think the inexplicable complexity of the universe was what Einstein thought of as God. Everything incomprehensible or unknowable.

Mark23 · 03-21-2007, 08:24 PM

How can you have told your daughter to make up her own mind and then have told her 'don't believe me'? Does this mean you don't want her to believe that she should make up her own mind? What you have said doesn't really make sense.

s3ood · 03-22-2007, 04:22 AM

mark23: I think your problem with what he was trying to say is pure 'semantics'

His overall message to his daughter was not to be influenced by anyone else and to make up her own mind about the subject at hand.

However what he was trying to say was to give her advice on how to do it, and in that advice he was 'telling' her to follow what he was saying, because he's her father and fell entitled to at least give her that or for what ever reason. Point being he was telling her to "listen" here and "not listen" to anyone on that subject as to not be influenced.

hmm I think I made it more complicated than what really was :P .. correct me if I am wrong DaveMatrix?

DaveOrion · 03-22-2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s3ood

mark23: I think your problem with what he was trying to say is pure 'semantics'

His overall message to his daughter was not to be influenced by anyone else and to make up her own mind about the subject at hand.

However what he was trying to say was to give her advice on how to do it, and in that advice he was 'telling' her to follow what he was saying, because he's her father and fell entitled to at least give her that or for what ever reason. Point being he was telling her to "listen" here and "not listen" to anyone on that subject as to not be influenced.

hmm I think I made it more complicated than what really was :P .. correct me if I am wrong DaveMatrix?

Thanks 3stood, just symantics. In other words while I believe in God, I've never forced that view on her. I should have said "dont take my word for it, make up your own mind."

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-22-2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

This seems to be a logical conclusion. I think the inexplicable complexity of the universe was what Einstein thought of as God. Everything incomprehensible or unknowable.

s3ood, #1 made me cry. How did you do that? Listen to Dave.

The glowing that was not there made me wonder where it was

pignati · 03-22-2007, 07:11 AM

The existence of God, from the angle I play, is that it leads you down a path to show you truth. The more time put into faith, the more awe obtained.

But even the word God means different things to each of us; for me that meaning is everything. I put my life into this ideal that I am on a guided path and coincidences are never so.

I'm thankful to say this trust has treated me very well.

s3ood · 03-22-2007, 07:15 AM

Ourcrazymodern?: trust me, I already find it very hard not to listen to him. But to tell you the truth I am not sure whether you were giving me a complement or saying something else :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by pignati

The existence of God, from the angle I play, is that it leads you down a path to show you truth. The more time put into faith, the more awe obtained.

Now THAT is the type of information that I believe took a lot of thinking, even though its a very simple concept. I am sure it would still take a great amount of energy to actually believe in it right away. Very inspiring.

I think one of the really disappointing points that I have understood from our discussion so far is, if Einstein couldn't get a straight answer to satisfy him, really makes you think what we are really capable of, doesn't it?

DaveOrion · 03-22-2007, 04:02 PM

Most people question their faith at one time or another. Some may even change their faith or lack there of. Atheists may turn theist, or vice verse, there's that nagging suspicion at the back of your mind, and only you can decide what to do. Even Da Vinci, who was reputed to be an agnostic, had the last rights administered before his death. He requested that 60 beggars follow the funeral procession, and was buried in the Chapel of Saint-Hubert in the castle of Amboise. I guess he wasn't taking any chances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?

s3ood, #1 made me cry. How did you do that? Listen to Dave.

The glowing that was not there made me wonder where it was

I meant to say Thank You OCM! (Do you mind if I call you OCM??? OurCrazyModern is a little long, and I type kinda slow anyway. I think I'm getting a little touch of Arthritis too, so I hope you don't mind. Hell, my vision isn't all that great either, I've had 20/20 or 20/15 forever, but staring at this computer screen surely isn't helping. Damn, I guess I should have just typed OurCrazyModern after going through all that. Alrighty, just let me know.....

)

bluepolaski · 03-22-2007, 09:09 PM

Atheism not your bag? Still have some faith in the supernatural? Look into Buddhism. There are no God(s) to prove or disprove, and it's more of a philosophy than a religion. I don't consider myself a Buddhist (I love eating animals!), but I like their ideas.

After the Siddartha Gautama, the guy who started it all, Buddhism has grown and split into different sects where there are indeed legends and people worship statues etc. But if you read Gautama's own words, it really reads much like philosophy, and not religion.

s3ood · 03-23-2007, 01:43 AM

bluepolaski: Hmm, actually I am not really looking into atheism or any other religion I am just going into a phase, where I am just wondering more than I should probably.

rlbond86 · 03-23-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s3ood

Faith is based on believing and God states that he wants us to believe in him blindly and nothing else.

You mean, you say God says that.

s3ood · 03-23-2007, 10:49 AM

rlbond: oh was just using that as an extreme example in my hypothetical example. Of course you can believe in other things, but not other God's or faith's thats what I meant.

Mark23 · 03-23-2007, 04:32 PM

No problem, i understand what you mean and agree with you. It's always important to minimise on indoctrination and provide people with all the evidence to allow them to make up their own minds.

s3ood · 03-24-2007, 02:04 AM

mark23: that is very true, I think diplomacy in thinking and discussion is part of maturity .. I am also sure theres no way to 'perfect' it. Theres always someone out there that would disagree with you. That is why I also believe that theres always a better way to say something. And as far as that goes, I hope to improve upon that when ever, how ever I can.

I hope didn't offend someone with what I said, all I was aiming to do is discuss and learn from other peoples experiences.

03-21-2007, 12:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
s3ood Upright	The Ingenious design of Religion I’ve been a long time reader, but never really had the chance to contribute, or maybe ask a question or two in the forum. I guess today is as good as any. I am 23 years old, and like many 23 year olds, I am only beginning to understand very few of the things that I did not for a while now. One of those things is of course the existence of God, which brings me to my topic of discussion. I was born and raised a Muslim, which isn’t really relevant to what I am going to ask but I just thought I’d mention that I am still a “believer”. What I want to talk about is regarding my newest chapter of “my” book of revelations. Now I am sure to some of you this is not new information, others might of considered it but never really put any emphasis or extra thought to it, but right now it’s all I can think of. I can sum up my question, my thesis and my answer all in one sentence, which is as follows: Can you prove or disapprove the existence of God? Can you? I am afraid that I have reached the conclusion that you cannot. And here’s why, let’s take one of the “Strongest” arguments that many theologians, regardless of religion, have came up with. There are of course many, but for the purpose of my point let’s take the “look into the miracles of nature” argument. While that argument does stand as a clear message of just how marvelous the world around is, it does not prove that there is a God, it just proves that the sun can rise up in the morning and dawn in the evening in perfect timing every day of the year, that a women can give birth and her body can adapt to very complicated changes to insure the best environment for child birth…etc etc etc. These examples are indeed miracles of nature, but are not concrete evidence of the existence of God. Just like that argument can be used to prove the existence of God it can also be used to disapprove his existence, as a theoretical approach. However, it is not concrete. Which brings me to the name of my topic, then if this is fact, and the argument can go both ways, then how is religion ingenious here exactly and how is it related to why and how God exists? But before I can answer that question, let me just add, one of the many arguments atheists use to disapprove the existence of God. If God does exist? then how come he doesn't want us to know? Let me try to answer those questions with an example. Let’s again imagine for the purpose of my point that God created some sort of sign on earth. Lets also just say that this sign was “indisputable” assuming that God has the infinite powers and resources, then this sign or creation would basically be a piece of cake. The purpose of the sign would be the following “I am your God, I exist, this my indisputable sign of my existence, worship me because that is why I created you” Again this sign or creation would not be some sort of book or human or whatever it would be an everlasting immortal sign that cannot be changed or disputed. What would happen? Well many things I am sure, but the majority of the people would be believers, no doubt there will be nay-sayers, but that’s not the point I want to discuss. My point would be had this sign existed, and then it would defy the whole rules of faith and final judgment. Faith is based on believing and God states that he wants us to believe in him blindly and nothing else. So having the sign would make us all believers while the rest of us would clearly just be people trying to lie to themselves or are mentally challenged, since the sign is clear and indisputable in this hypothetical situation. With the point being, nobody would be special we would all believe in God, but in various degrees. So here’s the real deal. While the validity of the reasoning I just gave of why God doesn't want us to know he exist, in an obvious way. Is obviously a disputed argument, again this is just what some religions argue. But regardless of that even if that wasn't the case and God has another reason why he does not want us to know he exists in an obvious way beside fate, then what is it? I know my argument is not exactly concrete myself, I clearly need more examples and perhaps more points of reasoning to reach a solid and plausible conclusion, that is where you guys and gals come in. Which is what I hope to discuss, what do you think? I hope I made some sense, I tend to wander off sometimes, and basically what I am trying to say is the absence of truth is not the truth of absence that is where my dilemma stands. Last edited by s3ood; 03-21-2007 at 12:22 PM..

03-21-2007, 01:04 PM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-08-2008 at 09:39 PM..

03-21-2007, 01:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	There's always an opposite side to this debate, many scientists believed in God, included Einstein. I find his quotes so true and enlightening. Belief in God? Is belief in the existence of God irrational? These days, many famous scientists are also strong proponents of atheism. However, in the past, and even today, many scientists believe that God exists and is responsible for what we see in nature. This is a small sampling of scientists who contributed to the development of modern science while believing in God. Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was *"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."* http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...encefaith.html __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

03-24-2007, 02:04 AM	#24 (permalink)
s3ood Upright	mark23: that is very true, I think diplomacy in thinking and discussion is part of maturity .. I am also sure theres no way to 'perfect' it. Theres always someone out there that would disagree with you. That is why I also believe that theres always a better way to say something. And as far as that goes, I hope to improve upon that when ever, how ever I can. I hope didn't offend someone with what I said, all I was aiming to do is discuss and learn from other peoples experiences. Last edited by s3ood; 03-24-2007 at 02:27 AM..

03-21-2007, 01:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Momentary correction: Einstein was not a believer in god. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

03-21-2007, 04:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He was raised Jewish, but changed to what can loosely be called a weak atheist or agnostic atheist when he was in his late teens or early 20s. His 'faith' was in the beauty of science and the universe.

03-21-2007, 05:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I think Einstein went back and forth during his lifetime causing some confusion.

03-21-2007, 08:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
Mark23 Upright Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland	How can you have told your daughter to make up her own mind and then have told her 'don't believe me'? Does this mean you don't want her to believe that she should make up her own mind? What you have said doesn't really make sense.

03-22-2007, 04:22 AM	#13 (permalink)
s3ood Upright	mark23: I think your problem with what he was trying to say is pure 'semantics' His overall message to his daughter was not to be influenced by anyone else and to make up her own mind about the subject at hand. However what he was trying to say was to give her advice on how to do it, and in that advice he was 'telling' her to follow what he was saying, because he's her father and fell entitled to at least give her that or for what ever reason. Point being he was telling her to "listen" here and "not listen" to anyone on that subject as to not be influenced. hmm I think I made it more complicated than what really was :P .. correct me if I am wrong DaveMatrix?

03-22-2007, 07:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
pignati Upright	The existence of God, from the angle I play, is that it leads you down a path to show you truth. The more time put into faith, the more awe obtained. But even the word God means different things to each of us; for me that meaning is everything. I put my life into this ideal that I am on a guided path and coincidences are never so. I'm thankful to say this trust has treated me very well.

03-22-2007, 09:09 PM	#19 (permalink)
bluepolaski Upright Location: Boston, MA	Atheism not your bag? Still have some faith in the supernatural? Look into Buddhism. There are no God(s) to prove or disprove, and it's more of a philosophy than a religion. I don't consider myself a Buddhist (I love eating animals!), but I like their ideas. After the Siddartha Gautama, the guy who started it all, Buddhism has grown and split into different sects where there are indeed legends and people worship statues etc. But if you read Gautama's own words, it really reads much like philosophy, and not religion.

03-23-2007, 01:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
s3ood Upright	bluepolaski: Hmm, actually I am not really looking into atheism or any other religion I am just going into a phase, where I am just wondering more than I should probably.

03-23-2007, 10:49 AM	#22 (permalink)
s3ood Upright	rlbond: oh was just using that as an extreme example in my hypothetical example. Of course you can believe in other things, but not other God's or faith's thats what I meant.

03-23-2007, 04:32 PM	#23 (permalink)
Mark23 Upright Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland	No problem, i understand what you mean and agree with you. It's always important to minimise on indoctrination and provide people with all the evidence to allow them to make up their own minds.