The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Marinan]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Again, assuming that god has any form of restriction is inherently contradicting that god is god.

I don't think thats how it works. If we don't understand, then no amount of arguing or debating will help. The only way to understand something like a god is faith. In faith, 1 = 100. In math 1 = 1.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Marinan

I don't think thats how it works. If we don't understand, then no amount of arguing or debating will help. The only way to understand something like a god is faith. In faith, 1 = 100. In math 1 = 1.

Alright, so faith is faith -- I understand that, but it doesn't work for me. It can't, all-loving, a mortal definition that we use to describe god, isn't all-loving.

You can't describe God, apparently. Since you can't explain anything he does, you can't explain that he does love all of us, you just hope he does. You have faith.

Honestly, I'm a bit more worldly.

In that earlier post you quoted, check the entire latter part. I've got my reasons, you've got your faith.

That's about it between you and me, I suppose?

[Marinan]

Perhaps, but I think that there is something a bit more people need to understand. You see, Faith is a form of understanding. In these modern times, many and such would have you falsely take it for fact that faith is not a form of reason, but for thousands of years it has been, and it always will be, even if you can't learn math from it, its actually better than a robotic logic that will only lead to the next theorem. Although, one could argue that they are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps they are only as good as eachother. The real point is that one's reason that God is God is their reason, your reason is your Reason. Understand?"

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I don't think in the way that matters. I'm not an expert on these scientific matters, unfortunately, but even these breaks all fall under the functions of the universe, no? Gravity and such being a subset of the main parameters. Shit, I need a good analogy. Haha.

I mean, I see what you're saying, and in a sense, you're right. The 'Laws of Physics' can be defined as the grand mass of all rules that govern interactions in this (or any) universe throughout the entirety of existance, but, perhaps, I took some leeway with the language.

What I was getting at is that, the way the universe interacts now is explicitly not the way it intereacted then. The four fundamental laws that govern the universe now were explicitly different than what they were then.

In a sense, these breaks in symetry do fall under the laws of physics. But in another sense, the entire structure of empiricism breaks down if we allow for breaks in symetry. If they were a constant part of the universe, any observations we made of the universe, and any tests we performed, would be immaterial, as they would be rendered obsolete by the changes in reality itself.

The laws that govern the universe in the here and now are so different then, that any tests we would do on anything now would not work then.

I suppose there's a good deal of linguistic specificity required there, but I feel that it does constitute a change because one of the tenets required of science to work is temporal symetry. Tests have to be repeatable and verifyable. If we accept that in the totality of physics, we need to deal with these breaks in symetry, well, there's really no way to compensate since the universe itself undergoes a massive change.

I feel that is pretty significant.


---
The following is a massive tangent.

Also, to understand Supergravity, I suppose I can somewhat explain...

The idea is that all the four fundamental forces of the universe are controlled by one 'messanger particle', the Supergraviton, since I have no idea what the word is, if there is one. (I don't know, maybe Omniton works better.)

So, let us say we have a mass. I mean, that's not a stretch, I have a mass right now. So lets say we have a mass. Mass exibits gravity, and emits gravitons which relay this force. If all four fundamental forces use the same particle, it cannot just emit a gravitational force. It must also emit an electromagnetic wave. In a sense, it has just become a massive photon. It must also emit the nuclear strong force, which would bind matter to it like neutrons and protons. It has just become a giant nucleus. It must also emit the weak nuclear force, which breaks down things as per bata decay. It has now become radioactive.

And it gets stranger. The weak force is currently limmited to less than the size of the nucleus of an atom. However, Gravity has a truly massive radius. Instead of just being radioactive, its presence makes huge swaths of area around it radioactive.

Which is somewhat irrelevant because the now-huge radius of its strong 'nuclear' force, which would try to combine the massive area into something like an atomic nucleus. Except that the strong nuclear force has to hadronize: this is called confinement. Whether or not it can when dealing with a twelve foot area is an entirely different question.

Imagine turning on a lightbulb and everything in your room is drawn up to it because of the gravity it creates.

All forces, always delivered with equal strength, and always on, doing everything to everything it touches.

And then there's potentially stranger effects that we can't imagine, based on the unknown nature of the size and state of these Omnitons.

Of course, this is all theoretical, since we can't observe Supergravity. It doesn't exist. At least, not anymore.

And whether or not we'll ever be able to recreate the proper conditions, particularly in such a way as to get retrievable, understandable information from them... let's just say, it requires an optimistic mind.

The preceeding has been... a massive tangent. Have a nice day.
---

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

I'm curious as to your thoughts on String Theory--maybe you can PM them to me? I can't say I'm extremely well-educated on science, but in the past year or so I've been slowly educating myself, and the dichotomy between proponents and opponents of String Theory has always interested and, admittedly, confused me (I do own a copy of The Elegant Universe, though, which is on my list to read after a few others). So, penny fer ya thoughts.

I mean, as long as I'm here, it's pretty short.

I feel that String Theory is an elegant and remarkable solution to the familial feud that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been undergoing. And, being a scientist at heart, I find the whole thing incredibly interesting.

However, in the end, and all mathematics aside, String Theory is entirely unfalsifyable. Therefore, it is not science. And because this not-science is being worked on by prominant physicists, I will work to never let them forget that it's not science.

Nor anyone else, for that matter.

Because it's fun.

[ZAKtheGeek]

This thread is too much. I can't handle all the great discussion! I don't even have the time to! I'm in favor of subthreads, is what I'm saying...

I'm not sure that's accurate. They have been around for a very long time, but aren't there theories about how the universe(s) work prior to the bangs/crunches?

Based on what was written after this, yeah, that is pretty hard to swallow, and I'll probably need to read up on it more.

That alone no. But... Look. I thought all I was supposed to do to satisfy a simple, honest question. Those are my basic reasons. I can go into great detail about bible history, bible translation... specifics on my religion that make me believe that it is true. But that's such an extensive argument in an already crowded thread.

Fine, fine, I can appreciate that you weren't expecting me to try and investigate deeper. I guess I was pointing out why I personally am not convinced by this reasoning. It's how I do things.

...The rulers of Babylon read Isaiah's book and said 'we'd better let the Persians drain our river and invade our city in a few years'?

I said it was crazy. Kind of like "magical superbeing gives man the power to see the future." I don't really see why one dominates any other.

It is major if what the rest of the bible says is true, isn't it? If (and stay cool locke, we're dealing with an IF scenario here) large portions of the bible are proven true, than the safest assumption is that the rest of it is also true.

There's no reason to think that unless there's actually a logical connection among the proven and unproven things. In which case, the unproven things would most likely be proven anyway. With logic. Maybe we should try another example. Screw the Harry Potter, let's take some sort of geometry textbook (so it's about as proven as it can be) and randomly throw in some choice pieces of the Quran. Praise Allah? I think not.

Just to throw in something relevant to recent posts, faith is not understanding. Not at all. You're not understanding anything because you have no data on it. It's basically taking a guess and labeling it as the truth. Then saying that you understand something.

There's more to say, but I'm just sitting here refreshing the last page and watching new posts appear as I type. I'll just stick to whatever's current.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Marinan

Perhaps, but I think that there is something a bit more people need to understand. You see, Faith is a form of understanding. In these modern times, many and such would have you falsely take it for fact that faith is not a form of reason, but for thousands of years it has been, and it always will be, even if you can't learn math from it, its actually better than a robotic logic that will only lead to the next theorem. Although, one could argue that they are two sides of the same coin. Perhaps they are only as good as eachother. The real point is that one's reason that God is God is their reason, your reason is your Reason. Understand?"

Well, let's take that logic:

Here's what it is to Understand.

to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend:

If Faith let's you grasp the meaning of existance through faith alone, in this context, yes, it would be 'understanding'.

to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of

No human alive can really show that they are thoroughly familiar with God, and the meaning of everything. All they do is believe -- in this context, no, your faith isn't letting you Understand anything, since the logic of Faith has been in the fallback ever since it had begun to be questioned; we've seen a lot of examples in this thread of that.

to assign a meaning to; interpret

Yes, it's assigning meaning to your life and the reason of the universe -- your faith, atleast to yourself, is interpretting everything. That works, atleast on a personal level.

to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of

Faith gives you significance and importance as being a 'child of God' so to say, so yeah, on the absolute personal level and by faith alone, I guess you could call it 'understanding'.

to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled

Hell no, or else this thread would never exist. Faith is not agreed or settled in any slight way, there's no way it's come to an 'understanding' in this light.

to learn or hear

I guess you could be learning, by your own standards, and on the soleness of "It's Faith".

to accept as true; believe

That's all Faith is. That plus the state of thought to not let anything else get in the way -- including logic.

to construe in a particular way

Faith has been construing things ever since the questions started surfacing, and hasn't finished doing it yet. In this context, Faith isn't understanding at all.

to supply mentally

Sure, it supplies you with something mentally. Whether or not it's right is a sole matter of Faith. Ta-da.

to perceive what is meant; grasp the information conveyed

It's so argueable, that the only escape is "I believe on faith alone".

As Penn and Teller would say "If you're religious, and you belive it is real solely on faith, then we can't Touch you. It's an automatic draw. NO ONE can bust you."

to accept tolerantly or sympathetically

I'm pretty sure the Doctrine of Christianity is to be tolerant (Though the bible contradicts itself on that in many a place), and as an agnostic, I'm entirely sympathetic.

Most people here are tolerant enough in regards to Faith, so to be understanding OF it, sure, I guess that one works.

to have knowledge or background, as on a particular subject

Highly Debateable. Massively, unmistakeable debateable. You tell me it's actual knowledge and you've got Faith Backin' ya. Automatic Draw.

to have a systematic interpretation or rationale, as in a field or area of knowledge

Penn and Teller: "If you want history or fact, you are so screwed."

There's a lot of disregard to Rationality the second you step into pure faith. I mean, you yourself:

"In faith, 1=100"

There's no logic, no rationalism. In this context, you're far from understanding.

Automatic draw, when you pull the faith card.

[Lockeownzj00]

Occam Strikes Again

Originally Posted by B_real_shadows

In addition, how is it someones call to make whose still living, doesn't know EVERYTHING about any one person like what they were thinking when someone did this, or know if someone truely feels remorse for any sins they've committed? Only someone who is omniscient could make one such call. A priest/bishop/pope/person, is not omniscient.

My point was that neither of you has any evidence for the validity of your claim. Both of you would say that your religion backs you up, and historically, the priest who condemns people left and right has more of a precedent. It just goes to show how pointless it is to try to interpret religious law.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

That appears to be a good argument for people experiencing an after-life. As matter simply changes states, so could energy? Maybe we can call that topic 7ish?

You don't seem to understand the argument I keep making: you are raping Occam like it's your job. It's a simple enough statement to make, but you're making far too many assumptions in your statement. I could just as easily say "isn't that a good argument for becoming a bowl of jello after I die?" and it would be equally unfounded. It's not a good argument for the after-life at all; you've made many leaps in logic.

1: When we die, despite our brain being shut down, somehow, our consciousness is retained in something.
2: This something is an essence which no one has ever seen, no one can point out on a cross-section of the human body, no one has ever studied in any real sense in any way, but everyone is sure exists.
3: Not only do you remain sentient in some sense after death, but you are transported to another world.
4: You may be transported to different worlds depending on your terrestrial behavior, which is all--
5: --judged by a supreme, invisible being, which no one has ever seen, no one can point out in the sky or on a map, no one has ever proven to converse with, but everyone is sure exists.

I have to stress that these leaps in logic and massive, astronomical assumptions are so grand and unfounded as to be useless. The idea of God, of the after-life, is an ideological trap; it appears easy and succinct, but there is a whole slew of implications with every assumption.

This is besides the point that you took one part of my analogy and misconstrued it. I said "things change states" to point out that things don't strictly "end" and become "nothing" as we traditionally view them, and somehow you turned that into "things change into other things" and broadly applied that to "death --> afterlife." When you die, you are socially "ended," but your body has merely changed states from organic to inorganic. This is where it stops. Making assumptions beyond this is patently ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

A statement of opinion. Science can correct itself, but you will find just as many people who won’t agree on a 'Scientific fact' as you'll find people who will argue over 'Religious Truth'...Eventually all sides may come to an answer, the likely hood of it being found on an internet forum is kind of remote. It does make for a good conversation!

God, I need that Sam Harris quote more than ever. >fume<

I addressed scientific disagreement in quotes below. Eventually, the theory which presents the most accurate case which is most grounded in the facts will prevail. Not so with religion.

Science and Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

We can say the same with other scientific theories. But maybe this leaves us at an impasse.

No, we can't. I implore you to stop putting scientific theories in the same plane as religious ones. The type of extrapolation that comes from science does not resemble religious extrapolation at all. Even if String Theory turns out to be largely misguided, it is still more sensible to believe in it than Creationism. Scientific theories, even the most nebulous of them, are rooted in established fact and attempt to extrapolate future conditions through logical deduction. The disagreement among scientists you use as evidence for its ambivalence is in fact evidence for its self-correction. Scientists debate the facts with different considerations in mind in order to come closer to the truth. The fact that there are many "end-scenario" theories only shows that such a massive concept has a huge amount of factors to take into account. And, as has always, always occurred, eventually, through cooperation, collaboration, and testing (in regards to String Theory: they just built that particle accelerator, right?), we will come to conclusions. This puts scientific theories millions of leagues above anything theology could produce.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

I'll stick to my belief...I realize this may appear... what’s the nice word for it... Illogical, but when was the last time we humans were 100% logical?

So what you're telling me is that despite truckloads of evidence to the contrary, you'll continue to "believe" because you feel like it? This paucity of self-reform and skepticism in Western thought is exactly thr problem. Religious logic seeps into everything, clouding our worldview. Thus it becomes acceptable to openly purport beliefs which are blatantly unjustified, all because of a "feeling." If scientists based everything on "feelings," we would be approximately nowhere right about now.

Originally Posted by Loki, the Fallen

My point was the odds of things working out the way they do, in my opinion, point to an intelligent design.

What is working out "the way they do?" For every elegant part of nature I can point to you one baffling and entirely broken part. This elegance is a romantic illusion and entirely subjective.

Faith

Good move, Mesden. Let's try to define faith. I have a little passage from one Sam Harris that I'd like to provide...

Originally Posted by Sam "the man" Harris

What is faith, then? Is it something other than belief? The Hebrew verb 'emuna*...is alternately translated as "to have faith," "to believe," or "to trust." The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, retains the same meaning in the term pisteuein, and this Greek equivalent is adopted in the New Testament. Hebrew 11:1 defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the convinction of things not seen." Read in the right way, this passage seems to render faith as entirely self-justifying: perhaps the very fact that one believes in something which has not yet come to pass ("things hoped for") or for which one has no evidence ("assurance"). Let's see how this works: I feel a certain, rather thrilling "conviction" that Nicole Kidman is in love with me. As we have never met, my feeling is my only evidence of her infatuation. I reason thus: my feelings suggest that Nicole and I must have a special, even metaphysical connection--otherwise, how could I have this feeling in the first place? I decide to set up camp outside her house to make the necessary introductions; clearly, this sort of faith is a tricky business.
...
Faith is what credulity becomes when it finally achieves escape velocity from the constraints of terrestrial discourse.

Beyond that, arguing with someone with such strong convictions about faith is like arguing with a Solipsist or Nihilist. They can not be "disproven" within their own framework, despite all logical and practical reasons to discount their philosophies. It's like Cops and Robbers: 'i shot you,' 'no you didn't,' 'yes i did,' 'i had an invisible shield,' etc. etc. and thus, useless.

Misc.

Originally Posted by TheKneumaticPnight

However, in the end, and all mathematics aside, String Theory is entirely unfalsifyable.

Isn't that what we're using the new particle accelerator for, though? To verify parts of the theory that have remained untestable for a long time?

[Bob The Mercenary]

Now that I'm done suffering through the Jets game, let's take a look at suffering.

Mesden asked more than once something to the effect of "if God loves us perfectly, why does he put evildoers in hell for an eternity of pain?" For the simple reason that he puts believers in heaven. If believers get to go to a perfect world, why should non-believers not get the exact opposite?

Also, you don't go to hell if you're a bad person. You can go on a genocidal killing spree with a chainsaw, and if you feel sorry for your crimes in the end and want forgiveness, that'll do. Along with the trust in Jesus and such.

And, this isn't based on anything I've read or heard, I think the reason we weren't automatically put in a perfect world was because of free will. We are given the choice to follow god, or turn our backs. That's the way it was supposed to be from the start, at least until Satan entered the picture.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Mesden asked more than once something to the effect of "if God loves us perfectly, why does he put evildoers in hell for an eternity of pain?" For the simple reason that he puts believers in heaven. If believers get to go to a perfect world, why should non-believers not get the exact opposite?


Also, you don't go to hell if you're a bad person. You can go on a genocidal killing spree with a chainsaw, and if you feel sorry for your crimes in the end and want forgiveness, that'll do. Along with the trust in Jesus and such.

That was about one tiny piece of it. And really, that's not a loving God.

A loving God doesn't send good people to hell because they didn't believe something. That somehow, good people go to hell for being mistaken once is wrong.

And that bad people who make the right choice once go to heaven? Horrendous -- there's no all loving, that's favoritism for those that follow you, nothing more.

It doesn't fly with me. That may work for you, not me, not many other agnostics out there.

[ZAKtheGeek]

But it's not a choice. If God wanted all people to live in a perfect world, they would. Since God is all-knowing, it knew based simply on the concept of everything it was to create that many people would end up suffering in hell. Even if you call it free will, the choice one makes is still a function of how their mind is made and what's in it, which is something God would have known ahead of time, as well as something that resulted directly from God's own actions, since it made everything.

Basically, to say that people going to hell is somehow a surprise to God is saying that God's neither omniscient nor all-knowing.