God has a plan for everyone. - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

docbungle · 08-19-2004, 11:40 PM

Why introduce the extremely problematic concept of "god" when you've already justified being good without it?

Except that, if there is a God, you are not introducing anything at all. You are simply oblivious. Intentionally so. If there is a creator, and you don't believe that he exists because of a lack of acceptable evidence, it doesn't make him cease to exist.

If there is a God, and he/it created us, then there is, of course, no way to completely understand everything that we would like to, no way to have all the answers that have ,so far, gone unanswered. He created us how he wanted to, not how we wanted him to. As, humans, we cannot be all-knowing.

The ant under the magnifying glass has no idea of the vastness of the world around it, much less who or what is holding the magnifying glass. It may not even believe in magnifying glasses (or, indeed, even come close to understanding the concept of something so far removed from it's daily exsistence) until the day it is fried to death by a bored 7-year old boy with a runny nose.

If we are under the magnifying glass, so to speak, and we don't believe it because we can't see it or it can't prove it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. And to disrespect or be condescending towards others, or assume a vague sense of superior thought process over those who believe, is just as ignorant as those who "guarantee" the existence of God.

ARTelevision · 08-20-2004, 12:04 AM

I'm with you up until the last paragraph.

The last one is off base.

There is nothing disrespectful or condescending in my clear and precise statement that you quoted.

Period.

docbungle · 08-20-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

"...there has to be a God to make everything worthwhile in the end."

I don't see this as necessary, really. I mean, since you're just making things up, couldn't you make up any reason to make things worthwhile? How about 72 virgins? That seems to be the same sort of attempt, doesn't it? I see a lot of people making things up in order to make the unacceptable acceptable. It's not too convincing.

Sorry. I was more thinking of quotes such as the one above. And to clarify, I did not mean to insult an individual, and I apologize if I seemed to do so.

It seems to me that a lot of these discussions touch on the non-believer's view that we believers are "making things up" and such. Because our belief is not strictly built on 'human-proven-facts.' Thus our brain is smaller.

As far as it not being convincing to you...that is exactly my point. Humans tend to be convinced either one way or the other (there is a God, there is not a God), when in fact we really have nothing more to go on than a decision we chose to make based on how we have been trained to think, which is different for everyone and dependent on an unguessable number of subtleties and nuances that we have all been subjected to from the day we were born until now.

ARTelevision · 08-20-2004, 05:59 AM

Yes, of course you are right from your point of view.

This discussion is based on one's rock-bottom assumptions about life and the universe. I think it is important for "believers" to come to an understanding that attempting to convince someone of the rationality of one's religious beliefs is a conundrum. "Belief" is not a rational process that can be proved or demonstrated to non-believers.

As is clear from the exact posts I responded to in each of my posts, an attempt is being made to engage in rational logical philosophical discourse regarding religion. I am responding specifically to those attempts to prove or demonstrate the existence of god or the necessity of "god" as argued.

Once one enters the field of philosophical discourse, logic and rationality rule. I employed standard rational technique and language to question the assumptions and arguments presented as demonstrative of the existence of god. The reference to "72 virgins" is intended as an example of strongly felt and deeply held religious belief that is in all ways similar to other religious beliefs held by good people. The fact that it is irrational and logically undemonstrable is the justification for using it above.

Thanks.

theusername · 08-21-2004, 10:17 PM

Once again I agree with Art. Almost anyone will agree it is better to be a good person rather than a bad person. Isn't that justification enough?

In my view, a true "believer" needs not to believe in God, whether he exists or not is futile. A true believer must believe in the goodness of the human spirit and act from his heart in which he feels is the best interest of mankind without harming others.

Most would agree the act of praying doesn't improve a person who's a criminal or harms others but prays 5 times daily.

08-19-2004, 11:40 PM	#41 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	Why introduce the extremely problematic concept of "god" when you've already justified being good without it? Except that, if there is a God, you are not introducing anything at all. You are simply oblivious. Intentionally so. If there is a creator, and you don't believe that he exists because of a lack of acceptable evidence, it doesn't make him cease to exist. If there is a God, and he/it created us, then there is, of course, no way to completely understand everything that we would like to, no way to have all the answers that have ,so far, gone unanswered. He created us how he wanted to, not how we wanted him to. As, humans, we cannot be all-knowing. The ant under the magnifying glass has no idea of the vastness of the world around it, much less who or what is holding the magnifying glass. It may not even believe in magnifying glasses (or, indeed, even come close to understanding the concept of something so far removed from it's daily exsistence) until the day it is fried to death by a bored 7-year old boy with a runny nose. If we are under the magnifying glass, so to speak, and we don't believe it because we can't see it or it can't prove it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. And to disrespect or be condescending towards others, or assume a vague sense of superior thought process over those who believe, is just as ignorant as those who "guarantee" the existence of God. __________________ Bad Luck City

08-20-2004, 12:04 AM	#42 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I'm with you up until the last paragraph. The last one is off base. There is nothing disrespectful or condescending in my clear and precise statement that you quoted. Period. __________________ create evolution

08-20-2004, 05:59 AM	#44 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Yes, of course you are right from your point of view. This discussion is based on one's rock-bottom assumptions about life and the universe. I think it is important for "believers" to come to an understanding that attempting to convince someone of the rationality of one's religious beliefs is a conundrum. "Belief" is not a rational process that can be proved or demonstrated to non-believers. As is clear from the exact posts I responded to in each of my posts, an attempt is being made to engage in rational logical philosophical discourse regarding religion. I am responding specifically to those attempts to prove or demonstrate the existence of god or the necessity of "god" as argued. Once one enters the field of philosophical discourse, logic and rationality rule. I employed standard rational technique and language to question the assumptions and arguments presented as demonstrative of the existence of god. The reference to "72 virgins" is intended as an example of strongly felt and deeply held religious belief that is in all ways similar to other religious beliefs held by good people. The fact that it is irrational and logically undemonstrable is the justification for using it above. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

08-21-2004, 10:17 PM	#45 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Once again I agree with Art. Almost anyone will agree it is better to be a good person rather than a bad person. Isn't that justification enough? In my view, a true "believer" needs not to believe in God, whether he exists or not is futile. A true believer must believe in the goodness of the human spirit and act from his heart in which he feels is the best interest of mankind without harming others. Most would agree the act of praying doesn't improve a person who's a criminal or harms others but prays 5 times daily. __________________ ?