Why are atheists more concern about Christianity than Islam?
Abrahamists always had problems to think logical. That's why they are incapable to grasp simple logic.
If God would be omniscient and would know all outcomes, why put Abraham before a test? The outcome would be clear to God that Abraham was insane enough to kill his own son to prove his faithfulness.
So, why still put Abraham to a test?
When an Abrahamist rejects this, doesn't any logical person comes to the conclusion that God is a sadist then? And if an Abrahamist rejects this too, what is left then? No other conclusion than: God = Demiurge.
Read Genesis with logic: Without exceptions, all translations speak of OUR in Genesis 1:26. This implies that there are multiple God's with whom Demiurge formed consensus creating mankind.
After consensus between multiple God's, Genesis 1:27 mentions that the Demiurge created mankind in his own image. But for what reason did the Demiurge create mankind? The bible doesn't mention a reason. But since there was consensus between God's it is plausible to assume that it was a kind of test for the Demiurge. A test in which the Demiurge hopelessly failed, since he had to flood the earth to start all over again.
Any objections?I never really thought about that before, but you're right somewhat. I've never read a post or forum where an atheist directly attacked or insulted islamic beliefs, Mohammed or Allah. However the idea of atheism itself is the lack of belief/interest in a higher power or all powerful being. So although I've never read a post or forum that described or entailed a situation as the one that you listed, anytime an atheist ever insulted God they would also be insulting any other all powerful being. As Allah is the "god" in Islamic beliefs, they would be insulting him too. For that matter no one should be allowed to insult anyones god. Even if there is only one.
<link snipped>togather are men their relign. way is diffrent but .......is one.
I don't know, but I wonder if its got something to do with the following two possible reasons
1.) FEAR of repercussions that might ensue from speaking out about Islam (as illustrated by many news events) is far greater than fear of speaking out about Christianity, nowadays.
2.) PENT UP ANGER about 'Christianity's abusiveness'/'The Church's abusiveness over time (either in a personal life-time or historically) is a real phenomenon in Western based cultures. Whereas we tend to have a 'lack of history' of experiencing Islam close up.
To illustrate some points:
re Personal Pent Up Anger of many individuals all melding into one critical voice against The Church's (which can then be easily interpreted as against "Christianity) child sexual abuse by the priesthood, is just one extreme and widespread example of personal harm becoming a cultural pent up anger .. which can now be safely expressed.
Another, perhaps lesser known, example that I was told of by my family, is 'financial exploitation of the vulnerable' by priests, which can now be far more freely expressed than used to be the case, (as opposed to a lack of any such pent up anger towards Islam, amongst Western cultures, because, we just don't have a long enough (personal or cultural) experience of Islam-over-time. We just simply haven't had time to have built up any LONG TERM pent up anger. But to get back to the example my family told me about (re pent up anger towards The Priesthoood/The Church/Christianity, is as follows:
During the Great Depression era of the 1930's my family (non-Catholics) had a boarder: a widow whose meagre income paid for her board and lodgings at my family's house plus (what should have been) a little bit to save and to buy some extras for herself with ... BUT instead, every Friday, the priest from her local church would come around and she would hand him ALL her spare money and he would report to her on her dead husband's progress in his quest to 'get out of purgatory'! (Purgatory is apparently a state between Heaven and Hell!!!) And this poor woman believed the priest's reports that her 'dearly departed' had slipped again .. and so, was about to go to hell, but then the Friday payment would just be enough to put him in with a chance to FINALLY ascend to Heaven .. which of course never happened, or so the priest reported to her. But, one more payment to the priest and he just might see Jesus!!!
These abuses become part of our collective consciousness, I believe, and so now that we can say !#!# - off!!! to Christianity, people sometimes do! (Even if Christianity as we know it now - for example, abusive priests, "In Guns We Believe", all powerful, American business power-brokers - is nothing like what it was meant to be {or could be .. and I'm sure sometimes still is})
And then of course there's the, even more long term, historical pent up anger - as epitomized by what comes down through the ages to our collective psyche as the witch hunts in the Middle Ages - The Inquisition. Who know how deep the cultural hurt from this abusiveness runs .. but Fear-once-it-has-been-lifted CAN become revenge.
A very interesting topic, raised by Claire Evans, albeit 2 years ago. And one with a lot more avenues that could be exploredI think it's more complex than that. Keep in mind that the Christian right has been constantly trying to pass laws in the U.S. forcing their beliefs into schools and government. This is something that the founding fathers wanted to avoid. I know that many people say the U.S. is founded on Christian principles, but it isn't. Most of the people who established this country were either indifferent or deists.
The founding fathers specifically stated that no religious test should be required to hold public office, yet nobody in their right mind would deny creationism if they want to be elected.
Extreme Islam isn't trying to control the lives of Americans. Extreme Islam isn't trying to force children to pray in schools (again, unconstitutional). Extreme Islam isn't responsible for laws in the U.S. that discriminate based on "religious freedom". Extreme Islam isn't defending pedophiles like that Duggar scumbag. Extreme Islam doesn't motivate American citizens to deny their children medical care in favour of prayer (which by the way, hasn't exactly worked well. Maybe consider that for a second).
Yes, extreme Islam is a threat, but on a military and foreign level. Here, people should practice their beliefs and respect those of others.
Atheists aren't "attacking" anyone. Tell you what -try not ostracizing us, costing us our jobs, forcing us to obey your misguided laws and spreading ignorant, disproven garbage, and then we'll stop lashing out.Hey actually thats not their choice and they do not have that power to choose his religion as they are afraid of their god
I'm not interested in making you a 'believer'. I'm interested in defending this as a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to believe. I'm interested in pointing out the lie that pits science against God as if they can't both be true for what it is.
I get it. You think it's some witty scam that somebody came up with way back when that still baffles people to this day. This ruse that someone thought up centuries ago just took on a life of it's own, I guess.
And please with the spaghetti monster stuff. There's only one God that we both know we've been talking about because His story is known around the world. The texts that speak of Him form the basis of the three major religions of the world. A God who just interacted with humanity for a short time a few thousand years ago in southern Mesopotamia and northern Africa, and the effects can still be seen to this day. There's no other God in contention.
God doesn't exist in the material world. He exists apart from it. Pre-big bang. We evolved from the material world. We evolved to see/hear/smell/taste/feel material things. These senses are ill equipped to 'see' God. But we have reason. And reason says intelligence is at work in this universe. No matter how you rationalize it, there's only one observable universe, and in this one and only known/observable universe we hit an improbable jackpot with how everything came together. An environment formed with consistent regulated conditions that allowed for the dawning of life which led to the birth of consciousness and self-awareness. Essentially we're heaps of stardust, pieces of the universe that for just a moment became aware of our miniscule place in this giant orchestra before fading back into nothingness. A proverbial flash in a pan, that just happened for a moment, then dissipated.
Reason says this isn't an accident. Reason says this was deliberate and intelligence was involved. We know intelligence to be a natural occurrence in this natural world. Why are we so opposed to the idea that intelligence could be involved? It's a real thing that we know exists, and we observe things in nature consistent with things that are created intelligently. Like a coded information system in our cells, for example.
You seem to view it as if the way everything is handled is the ideal way God intended. What is the actual truth is that God gave us a gift that's truly extraordinary. And to make it possible He's gone through a lot of trouble. He's had to do some things. He's had to make special setups and arrangements. But ultimately it's all worth it because free will is that big of a deal.Please quit trying to rationalize your God. It's never going to work, no matter how hard you try.
I have to try. I can't deny He is in fact part of reality. To consider the possibility He isn't is simply ridiculous. So, finding reason and meaning in a reality where a God like this exists is what's left. We have reason and have proven we work well together when we employ it, so it stands to that reason that this God is reasonable, being that He would be the source of reason.
Most are satisfied with simple belief.
As are scientists, who have to be satisfied with the ridiculous belief that quantum mechanics somehow makes sense. Or a Universe form Nothing.
Honestly, no theory, religious or scientific,makes "sense".Yeah, you're right. No matter the answer, it's inevitably going to be at least a little ridiculous. Reality is a little ridiculous.
With QM its not a belief. QM works to accurately predict quantum events. But there is a lot missing from it, like an explanation for gravity, which Relativity explains rather well.
It is counter intuitive to most people, but experiment shows it works, so that's all we can ask for in a tool. We are, of course looking for the missing peaces, which may clear a few things up.
As for a universe from nothing, the teary doesn't mean absolutely nothing. The nothing is quantum fluctuation, which is happening all over the universe. It's potential energy in the fabric of space itself seeming to spontaneously become actual, usually followed by mutual annihilation due to the fact that all particles are born twins; one matter and one antimatter.
So not something from nothing. And not something that requires belief, just much more testing.
"I'm not interested in making you a 'believer'. I'm interested in defending this as a perfectly rational and reasonable thing to believe. I'm interested in pointing out the lie that pits science against God as if they can't both be true for what it is."
If you need to believe things it's as good as any I suppose. But no, the bible does not conform to science.
But I agree that the two can get along. They have been doing so for a long time. The reason is science looks for how it all works. A god is irrelevant to science because whether it exists or not doesn't tell us anything about how it all works. Believers like yourself say the findings of science are discoveries of how god did it. Sure, cool.
Fundamentalists, young earthers, etc, are at war with science and reason, and it with them.
"I get it. You think it's some witty scam that somebody came up with way back when that still baffles people to this day. This ruse that someone thought up centuries ago just took on a life of it's own, I guess."
Not exactly. it evolved like everything else. I don't think it's done as a ruse intentionally. I don't think those that say it think its a scam.. But it is a device priests have been using for a long time to keep people in the religion knowing none of them will ever have proof. It isn't obvious that god is out there, but if you want to get to heaven you have to keep believing.
It seems most gods require you believe in them and honor them without proof. As you said, you don't need belief if you know because there is actual proof. So we have two alternatives, god can't or won't show himself to everyone in an obvious way, or there is no god.
Being believers believe there is one, they tell others of the importance of belief, and make believing without proof a virtue instead of silly.
"And please with the spaghetti monster stuff. There's only one God that we both know we've been talking about because His story is known around the world. The texts that speak of Him form the basis of the three major religions of the world. A God who just interacted with humanity for a short time a few thousand years ago in southern Mesopotamia and northern Africa, and the effects can still be seen to this day. There's no other God in contention."
Why do people get so offended when you point out other things people might believe without real proof? Your god is as demonstrably real as a spaghetti monster god with meatball eyes until we all have objective proof it exists. No difference.:Yeah, I'm in the same boat where YUC's and other fanatics are concerned. Ignorance is ignorance, it doesn't matter who's pushing the agenda.
I'm not offended about the spaghetti monster thing. I'm pointing out how inappropriate an example it is. There's no comparison. If there were ancient texts and religions that played a major role in human history that centered around the flying spaghetti monster, then that would be different. You say there's no objective proof, yet there's this. An obvious impact that isn't there for nothing.If someone was committed enough, they could write a bunch of texts about the FSM and how it impacted people around the world with whatever would be considered proof. If they went about it the right way, 2000 years from now people might actually think such a thing existed.
There really is no difference...except that we all know spaghetti is factually delicious.Yeah, if... sure, but it never happened. It did happen with this other God, though.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster apparently didn't inspire enough commitment, but there were plenty committed to this other God.Sure. With plenty of them "committed" to this God at the point of a sword.
That came long after the texts had already been written. This God was already a legitimate and well known entity by that point. Yeah, humans do a lot of horrible stuff.
If Constantine hadn't forced Christianity(by law and the sword) on to the population, Christianity would be just another myth by now. It is nothing special.
Well, nothing special with the exception of being the one religion adopted by the Roman nation. Well, that and it's played a role in every human age since. And, clearly, it was taken seriously by people who lived in that age during that time considering it was adopted by Rome, who were contemporaries of Jesus. Jesus actually lived in one of the regions they governed. It seems highly unlikely the Romans could be fooled by some mock religion so easily. There must be something to it.
The one religion adopted by Rome? Rome had a multitude of religions. Historically, they adopted and incorporated gods from all over the place, renaming and re purposing the entire Greek pantheon. Constantine is well known to have ulterior motives for using Christianity as a uniting force for his Empire, and its even said that he only truly conveyed on his deathbed, if ever, as a last minute wager of "what if". As soon as the church gained power, it began persecuting pagans and making determinations of heresy. It seems like your argument here is just a giant appeal to popularity.
I am appealing to the popularity because it's a relevant thing. If the stories of the bible are in fact true, then an impact should be expected on humanity. Influence. It's valid and relevant information that should not be overlooked or dismissed.
If truth is based on popularity and impact, Hinduism, Buddhism islam and even the Egyptian religion is true.
No, popularity in itself doesn't make it true. But the popularity and impact it's had is an indicator.
Impact? Have you noticed that Christianity is dying out?
Regardless of whether or not it's dying out, it's had the kind of impact you should expect if the events the bible's describing really happened in that part of the world.
Be specific. It must have a different impact from other religions. I don't see any.
Other religions are part of the impact. In fact, most of what we now see as 'religion' started all at the same time and the events of Genesis were a catalyst of that.
The impact of all the people of that part of the world being deathly devoted to this belief. The impact of centuries of devotion. Multiple religions sprang up from that one set of books.
So? Other forms of religion are just as robust. Egyptian religion lasted for thousands of years. So did Hinduism (which still exists today).
Why is Christianity dying out if it is so robust? (And, according to you, the "true" religion).I'm not saying any of this to claim it to be the one true religion. I'm pointing out why it's valid. In what way it is an expected result.
Hinduism, to my knowledge, doesn't claim interaction with a deity in the somewhat recent past. This one does, and the type of impact you'd expect such an event to have can be seen, still to this day.
Certain Muslims are deathly devoted to their religion to the point where they blow themselves up...alot.
Devotion to an idea is impact, to be sure. But that doesn't mean its true, right? It certainly did capture the imagination due to the fact that it promises ever lasting life, as most religions do in one form or other, and that's the main reason people believe them. The thought of death is traumatic to most. A way out gets jumped on. But that doesn't make it true.
See, this is the point I'm trying to get to. To buy into your interpretation, or viewpoint, I'd have to buy into the idea that this whole religion thing is just one giant mistake. That humans for numerous generations just wanted so bad for a happy ending that they just bought into this thing that stayed around for centuries and shaped our culture. Mass delusion, basically.
The impact we see isn't what mas delusion looks like. Mass delusion doesn't have this kind of stay power. It doesn't perpetuate generation after generation.
I understand the desire to be rid of the whole mess. I get it. But I think some of you, in your haste, are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I think there really is something legitimate here. I don't think you see this level of influence and impact if there's nothing at the center but delusion."The impact we see isn't what mas delusion looks like. Mass delusion doesn't have this kind of stay power. It doesn't perpetuate generation after generation. "
Obviously it does. If not, you would have to say Hinduism is correct,as it has had much longer staying power than Christianity.Hinduism isn't really a good comparison. The two are so different. One is a belief system, one is a spiritual kind of practice. It's ritual. It's become part of the culture.
" One is a belief system, one is a spiritual kind of practice." Both are spiritual practices and belief. system.
" It's ritual. It's become part of the culture." Both are here as well.
You refuse to listen to my perfectly sound argument.Christianity is based on the belief that just 2000 years ago in the middle east a man was dead and came back to life. Something that quite a few people who lived in this part of the world during this time accepted. It wasn't ancient practices and traditions passed down for generations. Hinduism isn't even really practiced in the same way. It's more rituals that are perpetuated. Sure, Christianity has its rituals to, but it's really not the same. Worship is part of it, but there's no real deity, only really avatars.
The ideas of Christianity are taken from earlier religious beliefs. How do you account for the similarities in deities like Osiris, Mithras,and Baccus? It's old ideas, nothing really new.
It's not really whether or not the ideas are new or not. It more has to do with whether or not the ideas make contextual and material sense. Is the entirety of the concept solid or does it get a bit dicey in that one part? And do the specific ideas of Christianity fit the rest of the story?
It seems simpler and more likely that the ideas were borrowed from earlier stories and religions.
Ideas always fit into the context of the culture. They are made to fit.Well, sure, but it seems highly unlikely that those old borrowed ideas, taken from tales told in totally different contexts, would fit so well into the overall scheme of things. That seems really unlikely.
What "overall scheme of thing"s?
The stories themselves are highly unlikely. That is why they are obviously stories."Overall scheme" as in the specifics of the Jesus story perfectly complete the story setup in the OT.
By what standard do you determine the stories to be unlikely? Some might say, if it weren't for all the bones, that giant reptiles would be highly unlikely. Or giant mammals. Just because something might seem unlikely by today's standards doesn't mean it was never unlikely.
We should be careful not to determine too early what can and can't be the answer. Be open to whatever it may be. Whatever explains it best.Firstly, the specifics of the Jesus story were written by people more than familiar with the old testament by educated Greek speakers who combed through the old testament to shoehorn it in, so that's not surprising at all. Secondly, there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus, and the only specifics we have are in the gospels, which are not corroborated and are not exactly unbiased. Your point fails.
Of course. It's a faith-based thing. To have confirmation would undermine the whole thing. You have to be able to doubt it happened.
The themes that the Jesus story completes isn't just something someone familiar with the OT could come up with. It's only in this age that it really makes sense.You're saying that every character in the Bible up through the apostles essentially didn't have free will, as if you couldn't have definitive proof and still reject it: case in point, judas, the Roman governor and all of the priests. Oh. .. And Lucifer. That's absurd.
Christians have re purposed the old testament to make it fit what they want to be true. The Jews have an entirely different list of messianic prophecy that jesus absolutely did not fulfill, if the stories about him are actually true and if he existed at all.No, not all. Everyone 'of Eve' had free will. However, I don't think Lucifer does. Afterall, He had to ask for God's permission to jack with Job.
Christians before this age of information couldn't have known to complete the story like this. That's what I mean, it makes the most sense in the context of modern knowledge. Something the authors weren't privy to.
It's one thing to assume blatant dishonesty, but I find it's often wrong to do so. Humans are certainly capable, but we're too big of bungling fools to come up with a dishonest concept that's this applicable and is still being discussed and argued centuries later. You imbuing these people with capabilities I don't believe they had. That's like thinking the government could actually orchestrate some intricate conspiracy. Most often, they're not actually that smart.So if Lucifer has no free will, how did he become the devil? Or is the Bible wrong about that score?
It fits perfectly now because we make it fit. The people in the middle ages thought it fit perfectly then. You're simply one in a long list of generations to shoehorn meaning and perfection into an imperfect story. Nothing special there, sorry.Satan's serving a purpose. Like in the OT. He's the accuser. Devil's advocate, so to speak. He's on the prosecuting attorney side of the free will debate. He tests and challenges. Like with Eve, Job, and Jesus on the mound. That's his role.
It would be one thing if it were a shoe-horn situation, but it isn't. Shoe-horning would mean knowing all the details and devising something that fits. This fits new information as it comes in. This predicts what the information will be. That's not shoehorning. That's finding out the shoe actually fits.
"Of course. It's a faith-based thing. To have confirmation would undermine the whole thing. You have to be able to doubt it happened."
Most probably because it didn't except in peoples imaginations.Of course, you have to be able to think that for a faith-based concept to work. But mass delusion only goes so far. It doesn't last for centuries and fool half the world's population. Humans aren't THAT stupid.
So all other religions that have lasted just as long are what?
Inspired by the same events in most cases, and are too part of the impact.
They don't have to be stupid. Ideas are often like viruses. How many people do you think believe big foot is real? We all talk about and speculate about it but we don't know if it's real or not.
But all it takes is one person to say he saw something and people are interested and start spreading the story. It could be anything. Once I tell you about invisible pink squirrel gods, the idea is out there. No one can prove they don't exist. The little people of Ireland. No one can prove they don't exist. Common sense may say they don't, but how many believe they do? How long has that story been told and retold and believed?
Ideas are like viruses because humans function is to pass on information. Some idea packets have mind traps in them like Christianity. Don't believe, bad things will happen. Believe and when you die you get a reward. Traps that make it hard to leave once your in.
And isn't knowing the origin of all this and how to get out of death a lot more important then whether there are little people or not?
A story, a speculation is quickly made, but it can take on a life of it's own just as quickly and last for centuries. No god even needs to exist.But this would mean there's a big detrimental problem in the way the brain functions because it leads to false conclusions that effect behavior. Human intuition has served us well throughout our history. I just can't buy into this idea that something completely false and made up could survive and thrive throughout every human age throughout history, and still be here today. It would mean that everyone who 'believes' iis just fooling themselves, or tricking themselves. Causing themselves to be deluded because for some reason still existing beyond death is important to this mind. Why isn't the mind only concerned with the physical body it evolved to be in control of? Why must it be fooled into thinking there's more beyond when the body dies? Why does it care? To the point that such a large percentage of the population could be fooled by it?
“But this would mean there's a big detrimental problem in the way the brain functions because it leads to false conclusions that effect behavior. “
You got it in one. Congrats.
“Human intuition has served us well throughout our history.”
And its often been dead wrong too. Don’t tell me you don’t know that.
“ I just can't buy into this idea that something completely false and made up could survive and thrive throughout every human age throughout history, and still be here today.”
Really? I can. It makes perfect sense.
“ It would mean that everyone who 'believes' iis just fooling themselves, or tricking themselves. Causing themselves to be deluded because for some reason still existing beyond death is important to this mind.”
Isn’t it? You’d drop god like a hot potato if it didn’t supposedly offer everlasting life. What would you need it for?
“Why isn't the mind only concerned with the physical body it evolved to be in control of? “
Because the mind doesn’t control everything consciously. The body ages, feels pain and we know it will die. Consciousness doesn’t like to think it will end and much prefers ideas that will keep it alive. I told you before, consciousness thinks it is you/a soul.
“Why must it be fooled into thinking there's more beyond when the body dies? Why does it care? To the point that such a large percentage of the population could be fooled by it?”
Are you kidding? It took me many years to be at peace with the fact that I’m going to die. For many its too much. Loved ones will never be seen again. They don’t go to a better place or anywhere at all. It’s terrifying to most people.
But if there is hope, your grief for loved ones can be tempered. Your fear of your own death minimized.
It’s a huge mental safety valve. No denying its impact on that score. Same with eastern philosophy and the cosmic consciousness, and reincarnation."Isn’t it? You’d drop god like a hot potato if it didn’t supposedly offer everlasting life. What would you need it for?"
That isn't true at all. God existing means everything. It's not just about what I get out of it. It's about saving and preserving these people who organized over millions and billions of years. It's possible for that person to continue to exist. To not go away as the universe goes away, but to continue to live. Not just me. Everyone. And everyone maintains their individuals wills and personalities. And creative capabilities.
Without God there's no meaning to anything. We're just a literal flash in a pan that will fade away and disappear as the rest of the universe runs out of energy and goes cold. Then it'll be like it never happened. It was just a fizzle in a ripple that fizzled out."That isn't true at all. God existing means everything. It's not just about what I get out of it. It's about saving and preserving these people who organized over millions and billions of years. It's possible for that person to continue to exist. To not go away as the universe goes away, but to continue to live. Not just me. Everyone. And everyone maintains their individuals wills and personalities. And creative capabilities."
You say no, and then you list the things god is good for. I said if god didn't offer all these things you would drop him, because he'd be no use to you. Can you deny that?
"Without God there's no meaning to anything. "
With a god there is no added meaning, except what you might benefit from it if you play the game correctly. We humans make our own meaning whether a god exists or not. I have yet to see you or anyone give me a meaning a god adds to life that makes sense, and doesn't involve what you get out of it if it exists.
"We're just a literal flash in a pan that will fade away and disappear as the rest of the universe runs out of energy and goes cold. Then it'll be like it never happened. It was just a fizzle in a ripple that fizzled out."
Welcome to the fate of a billion other species. You don't have anything to worry about on that score for a few hundred billion years or more. Don't panic just yet. You'll be dead long before that. What will you care?
We have no idea if that's going to happen or not any way. Anything could happen, including, if we don't die out before then, mankind may be building it's own universe through a black hole, may already have moved out, or have restored this one to stability. We can't know at this point, and you and I never will.
Face it, the only reason you think god is great is because you want to live forever. That may not happen. I'm sure if you try you can learn to deal with it.It's not that God is a use to me. It's that God existing gives life and existence deliberate meaning and purpose. We're not just some cosmic accident. We were deliberately made. And made for a specific reason. There's a reason to life and a reason why we exist. God existing gives life that. There's no meaning without God. If we weren't deliberately created then there's no meaning to anything.
"Anything could happen, including, if we don't die out before then, mankind may be building it's own universe through a black hole, may already have moved out, or have restored this one to stability."
Uh, no. No to all of that. If we actually could build our own universe through a black hole it would take billions of years before it was inhabitable. And this one can't be "restored to stability". There is no "stability". Energy runs out. The universe can't just keep going perpetually. Eventually the energy runs out and the universe just goes cold. It expands out and dissipates into nothing.
In the end there'll be no lasting proof that we were even here. Nothing we do will have even the smallest impact on the universe. It'll be as if we never existed at all. That's what you're left with without God.You cant imagine a meaning otherwise, so instead you latch onto a meaning that makes you feel better regardless if it makes any kind of sense. Kind of goes back to what Slarty said earlier, if some form of reward wasnt part of the picture, there would be next to zero reason for anyone to believe in any god. I can only imagine thats the reason why any religion that offers such is so popular, and those that offer a lesser reward than others are completely forgotten about. You have people who reject/ignore them even with the supposed offer of ever lasting life, imagine how many would ignore those religions completely if they didnt offer anything at all?
To be perfectly honest, I find the quoted logic to be incredibly pathetic and completely dishonest. I should note that that those are my opinions based solely around the logic itself."t's not that God is a use to me. It's that God existing gives life and existence deliberate meaning and purpose."
You still haven't told me what our purpose is, or what specific purpose a god adds.
" We're not just some cosmic accident."
In a universe run on cause and effect there are no accidents.
" We were deliberately made. And made for a specific reason"
And yet you continue to fail to tell me what reason.
. "There's a reason to life and a reason why we exist. "
what reason.?
"God existing gives life that."
How?
" There's no meaning without God."
Speak for yourself.
" If we weren't deliberately created then there's no meaning to anything."
And if we are what meaning is that?
"Anything could happen, including, if we don't die out before then, mankind may be building it's own universe through a black hole, may already have moved out, or have restored this one to stability."
"Uh, no. No to all of that. If we actually could build our own universe through a black hole it would take billions of years before it was inhabitable."
You are talking about tech from 100 billion years from now. Neither of us can know what we will or won't be able to do by then.
"And this one can't be "restored to stability". There is no "stability". Energy runs out."
Nonsense my man. Energy never runs out. It just reaches equilibrium. You are assuming the universe will expand for ever. We don't know that. Even so our galaxy won't expand because of gravity. Galaxies are getting farther apart from each other, except those like Andromeda which will pass through us and likely merge with us eventually. But the galaxies are not going to expand, so there's always going to be ways to generate critical mass and produce our own stars if we need to. With the billions out there and new ones being born all the time there may not be a need to.
" The universe can't just keep going perpetually. Eventually the energy runs out and the universe just goes cold. It expands out and dissipates into nothing."
Nope. Energy never runs out completely. It will always be potential if nothing else. And again, we really know nothing about what might happen in the mean time. Everything is hypothesis right now.including BB. There are other hypothesis like the one Penrose is working on which may merit some consideration as time goes by.
"In the end there'll be no lasting proof that we were even here."
So what? Who you trying to impress?
" Nothing we do will have even the smallest impact on the universe"
You don't believe in man made climate change then?
"It'll be as if we never existed at all. That's what you're left with without God."
Or with it. No one gets out of here alive.What God adds is everything, because if there is no God then we were not deliberately created for a purpose. We can only have purpose if we were deliberately created. Otherwise we're just what happened.
Our purpose is to live and experience life with free will so that free will can exist.
If it wasn't deliberately created for a purpose then it is all an accident.
Yeah dude, I'm sure technology will eventually save us.
You're wrong. The universe if finite. It began. And because of that it will eventually run down. Like a ripple, it eventually dissipates. It doesn't just perpetually go on and on. Eventually, there is an end, inevitably.
Man made climate change won't matter when the Earth is gone. Long after we're gone and there's no remanence of us left.
But with God it's possible to retain your indiviual self beyond the physical body. we humans with free will determined who to have children with and therefore, who exists, but with God they can continue on. Long after the universe is gone."Our purpose is to live and experience life with free will so that free will can exist."
Why? Anyway, we do that now. what's the difference whether a god did it or not? None.
"If it wasn't deliberately created for a purpose then it is all an accident."
Not in a cause and effect universe. Sorry.
"You're wrong. The universe if finite. It began. And because of that it will eventually run down. Like a ripple, it eventually dissipates. It doesn't just perpetually go on and on. Eventually, there is an end, inevitably."
You can't know if I'm right or wrong. And, if man lasts another 200 billion years we've had a good run.
Any idea how long that is? Unfathomably long.
"But with God it's possible to retain your indiviual self beyond the physical body. "
So you say. But only if it exists and it's the one you believe exists, nether of which you can know, let alone prove."Why? Anyway, we do that now. what's the difference whether a god did it or not? None."
The difference is, without God, we can't have free will. We can only be biological machines whose actions and decisions are determined by physical law. We can not willfully act free of determinism. Without God, without souls, we can only be passive observers, unable to take any willful action.
"Not in a cause and effect universe. Sorry."
Yes, in a cause and effect universe. If we were not deliberately made then we are not on purpose. The only thing left is 'accident'.
"You can't know if I'm right or wrong. And, if man lasts another 200 billion years we've had a good run.
Any idea how long that is? Unfathomably long."
I believe every physicist agrees. It's very unlikely we'll last that long. But even if we do, ultimately it will not matter. The universe will cease to be and it'll be as if we never existed. Nothing we ever accomplished will ultimately mean anything.
"So you say. But only if it exists and it's the one you believe exists, nether of which you can know, let alone prove."
True. But I have validated the stories of the bible as being historically accurate. That's about the best you can hope for."The difference is, without God, we can't have free will. We can only be biological machines whose actions and decisions are determined by physical law. We can not willfully act free of determinism. Without God, without souls, we can only be passive observers, unable to take any willful action."
Well obviously we can and do make choices. And obviously we are biological machines. So what? Life is still life and even more amazing then being created by the christian god.
"Yes, in a cause and effect universe. If we were not deliberately made then we are not on purpose. The only thing left is 'accident'."
No. I don't think you understand what a cause and effect universe means. There can't be accidents. It's not possible. The alternative to intentional in a cause and effect universe Is not accident, its inevitability.
"I believe every physicist agrees. It's very unlikely we'll last that long. But even if we do, ultimately it will not matter. The universe will cease to be and it'll be as if we never existed. Nothing we ever accomplished will ultimately mean anything."
Nothing we accomplish means anything any way except to us. So again, I fail to see why it matters to you whether there is a god or not. You are just manufacturing a need for meaning. I don't need any. Not everyone does.
As for every physicist agreeing, that almost never happens. Even if it did, truth is not created by consensus. Fact is there's a lot we can't know yet. However, we will have to be off the planet in 5 billion years from now when our star goes red giant. I suggest getting a good head start.
"True. But I have validated the stories of the bible as being historically accurate. That's about the best you can hope for."
Yeah, no... You think you have but you failed on the first few lines of the bible. Your premise is wrong so your entire train of logic is wrong.You said it yourself. It's a cause and effect universe. So how can we have willful control? That would mean having the capability to change the behavior of matter. The matter our minds are made of can only behave one way. It can only behave in accordance to the laws of nature. To have willful control would be like a river being able to choose its path.
So you mean to tell me it doesn't mean anything to you to leave a positive legacy? To leave a good impression of your life here on Earth? To be remembered? Yes, it matters to us. So why is that? We're just biological machines evolved to survive in this environment. so why do our brains insist on so much more? though we realize we'll be dead, we still want to live on the memories of others. We want what we do to mean something. To matter. So if we're no longer having to survive and that's all we evolved for, then why does the mind want more? Where does that come from? Why do we care? Why do I care that there's some sort of something left of humanity beyond the universe? What does that have to do with survival?"You said it yourself. It's a cause and effect universe. So how can we have willful control? That would mean having the capability to change the behavior of matter."
No it doesn't.
"The matter our minds are made of can only behave one way. It can only behave in accordance to the laws of nature. To have willful control would be like a river being able to choose its path. "
The fact that we have to obey the laws of nature doesn't mean that we only have one choice in every decision we have to make.No, we do have choices in that the brain figures out options given the conditions. But the choice you make between those options in any given situation is the only one you physically could have if there is nothing more at play in our minds other than cause and effect determinism. Matter just behaves as it behaves. There can't be willful choice.
I disagree. There are multiple choices in most given situations.
Yes, you're right. But you can only choose one. And if the brain is purely material cause and effect, we can't have any willful control in which option we choose. A river only flows one way. Electricity only flows one way. There's no choice. There's only what the environment and conditions dictate. There's only determinism.
So you say. Quantum mechanics says differently. There are only probabilities of the likelihood of something happening. We choose what happens. Nothing is determined.
Probability and the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics do not allow for, or make possible, free will. The inability to predict the location and velocity of an electron doesn't make willful control a reality.
All is determined. There can be no choice, unless there is a component of us that is not physical, and therefore not beholden to natural law.Natural law gives us plenty of room to make decisions. There is a lot of leeway. I can choose to jump one foot or two. Gravity will only prevent me from jumping ten.
I'm not talking about the physical laws and how we can't physically overcome them, like escaping gravity. I'm talking about our brains being made of matter and energy, and only being capable of behaving one way. Our ability to behave willfully and willfully change what our physical bodies do is akin to escaping gravity. It shouldn't be possible.
Why would our brains only be capable of behaving one way?
Can you give an example of what you mean?Yes, the brain is capable of all kinds of things. In a given situation the mind devises multiple options of how to respond to something. It considers the pros and cons of each and then the 'self' decides between the available options which to do. This is all common behavior for a brain. The contemplation of multiple options. Whether or not you your 'self' could willfully make a choice of one option over others is the issue. That is like a rock being able to choose whether or not to roll down a hill to the right or left. There's no choice. There's only cause and effect. Whatever state the brain is in, whatever the situation, that is what determines your action, or reaction. There is no willful control involved. It's all conditioning. It's all reactionary. There is no willful control. We are capable of observing, self-aware, so it seems as though we're in control. Those other options the brain devised only make it seem as though there were other actions we could have chosen instead. But in actuality, a rock can only roll down hill, and we can only act as the matter in our brains dictates. We can take no deliberate willful action. It's impossible.
That is your opinion, and not based on any evidence.
"Yes, the brain is capable of all kinds of things. In a given situation the mind devises multiple options of how to respond to something. It considers the pros and cons of each and then the 'self' decides between the available options which to do. This is all common behavior for a brain. The contemplation of multiple options. Whether or not you your 'self' could willfully make a choice of one option over others is the issue. "
But you yourself does make one choice out of many. A choice not everyone else will make. What is you yourself but the entire system that you are, including all your likes and dislikes, your personal experience, your learned preferences, etc?
Each person is unique because we all have different conditioning and no one else can ever occupy the same space we occupy at the same time, so we all have different perspectives from that point of view as well.
This dynamic produces systems that make willful choices. You want to eat ice cream now, so you either don't because you are watching you diet and think eating ice cream would be bad, or you gleefully and willfully indulge, or any thing in between.
For a person to make a choice there have to be reasons for making the choice. We don't go around making choices with no reason. We may have conflicting feeling and reasons for our choices.
This is the mechanism for being able to make choices at all. We reason. All biological things reason to varying degrees. We don't rely or function on instinct alone.
So while "free" in front of the word will is meaningless, we all have plenty of will because of what we are.
There is no outside soul required. The system we are makes willful choices in the only way possible.
Where would a soul get likes or dislikes? How does it make choices and why? It's silly to force a middle man in that you can't even explain, when the human system is explainable and its function demonstrable.
There is no future already out there for mankind to fulfill or for a god to see. There is no past to return to. There is only an ever changing now, that we and all thing together create now.Do you not see the contradiction in what you're saying? You're saying it's a cause and effect universe, yet you somehow think it's possible to make willful choices. How does that work exactly? There's no conditions to cause and effect.
Yes, you're right in that the matter that makes up you is the matter that 'decided'. But your decision was determined by the conditions, by your brain state at the time and the situation you were in. You can only respond as your brain determines. There's no willful choice being made. Just physics."Do you not see the contradiction in what you're saying? You're saying it's a cause and effect universe, yet you somehow think it's possible to make willful choices. How does that work exactly? There's no conditions to cause and effect. "
Lol... cause and effect is about nothing but conditions. Will is not some silly supernatural nonsense. It's you and all that you are. That's how we make willful choices; by our will. It's not a sacred nor abstract nor separate idea. It's how we survive. I've explained countless times how it works.
I said in a cause and effect universe the alternative to intent is not accident, it's inevitability. I didn't say there was no intent.
"Yes, you're right in that the matter that makes up you is the matter that 'decided'. But your decision was determined by the conditions, by your brain state at the time and the situation you were in. You can only respond as your brain determines. There's no willful choice being made. Just physics."
It's no contradiction. It's the only way choice is possible. What are you but your brain state? You are your brain. No one else is making choices for you. You keep saying I'm not making willful choices but it's obvious we are making them as it is our will that makes them. Jeeeze, it's so obvious.
Again you fail to tell me how a soul is different or free. were it to exist there would have to be a way for it to make choices. A way in which it operates.Your soul is then bound to that mechanism. No difference. So no need to consider a soul since you can't show that it exists.
Of course your choices are determined by many factors. That's unavoidable even with a soul. There are many factors to every choice, and we take them all in to consideration to make a choice.
You just want there to be a soul so you can beat death. That's all this is about. You want to be separate from your body and brain. But the body and brain is who and what you are.No, no, no. There is no willful choices in a cause and effect natural world. There's only conditions that can alter how matter behaves. There is no willfully changing behavior.
How can there be intent?
Yes, you are your brain, but there are no choices in a causal cause/effect universe. There's only the inevitability of natural behavior according to natural law. There's no willfully overcoming what matter naturally does for there to be a real choice.
A soul is not material, and is therefore not beholden to natural/material law. a soul is the only we can have freedom of will.
This is not wishful thinking on my part. This is the result of a logical progression. It's the only answer.
