Belief systems poll

[Gucumatz]

Big things have small beginnings. If anything, if you believe in a higher power, it should be to an extent in everything.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am not sure I have held this argument with you before, but people who believe in God take the rules of physics, biology, etc. to all be signs behind a divine "order". What I and others have argued is that we do see signs of a higher power not just in the rules [which are far too static] but in degrees of randomness - like the big bang theory.

Going back to the origins of the Big Bang Theory, it was often accused of being a creationist tool by its opponents (including Einstein) but its math was technically sound by the priest and later Vatican official Lemaitre. Degrees of tiny microscopic variation, aka part of chaos theory, are responsible for the minuscule alterations that caused certain primordial substances to jump from points A -> B. Tracing everything back to the big bang theory you see these random variances and they themselves create a framework, a map if you will. Lemaitre's "Big Bang Theory" was accused of being creationist because partly of these somewhat unexplained variances [which further research since the early 20th century has shown are probably even more abundant in effect than first proposed and since then the Big Bang has become a mainstream idea] made him and others believe this "randomness" or "chaos" and the "primordial atom" from which we can trace things to are logical examples of a higher power at work - especially considering if the "primordial atom" was at one point in a relative stasis or neutral balance, some degree of variance, tension, or force would have had to cause it to reach the next stage. It becomes harder to trace these chaotic variances the closer we get in time to now because of rolling forces started eons ago.

Just a way of looking at it of course but easily possible to determine these as mathematical signs.

There's a difference between interpreting the order of the universe as a sign of divine handiwork and evident sign which take a fool to miss it.

I would also have liked to have seen the evidence which made it clear to our zealous friend it was his god who was responsible for it and not for instance Gaia. The short-cut everyone who is promoting their own flavour of god always make is: signs of a god must mean the god I worship.

And finally, I was looking for a concrete example.

Now to the bulk of your post, you aren't claiming clear evidence which overrules other explanations but rather a more subjective interpretation. Which is fine by me. Because that leaves room for me to disagree without direct conflict.

 

[timtofly]

But if god created Lucifer as a good angel, where did pride and greed and lust come from?

free will?

My theory based on all sources tends to take free will away from the Angels when satan and a third of the angels rebelled. Mankind was the next entity that was given free will, who had more ability than humans have to day, which was also lost when humans followed after satan. Human free will extended to everything in the known physical realm. The angels once had free will in the spiritual realm.

Angels have no choice any more. Humans have limited choice, but very little control over much.

 

[Borachio]

I am not sure I have held this argument with you before, but people who believe in God take the rules of physics, biology, etc. to all be signs behind a divine "order". What I and others have argued is that we do see signs of a higher power not just in the rules [which are far too static] but in degrees of randomness - like the big bang theory.

Going back to the origins of the Big Bang Theory, it was often accused of being a creationist tool by its opponents (including Einstein) but its math was technically sound by the priest and later Vatican official Lemaitre. Degrees of tiny microscopic variation, aka part of chaos theory, are responsible for the minuscule alterations that caused certain primordial substances to jump from points A -> B. Tracing everything back to the big bang theory you see these random variances and they themselves create a framework, a map if you will. Lemaitre's "Big Bang Theory" was accused of being creationist because partly of these somewhat unexplained variances [which further research since the early 20th century has shown are probably even more abundant in effect than first proposed and since then the Big Bang has become a mainstream idea] made him and others believe this "randomness" or "chaos" and the "primordial atom" from which we can trace things to are logical examples of a higher power at work - especially considering if the "primordial atom" was at one point in a relative stasis or neutral balance, some degree of variance, tension, or force would have had to cause it to reach the next stage. It becomes harder to trace these chaotic variances the closer we get in time to now because of rolling forces started eons ago.

Just a way of looking at it of course but easily possible to determine these as mathematical signs.

I like this.

Imagine an entity with perfect knowledge. Isn't it possible that it sets a subatomic particle off on its journey at the beginning of the universe? And that this particle has only just now impacted my brain, setting off a train of thought that has resulted in me typing this post?

Given such an entity, isn't it extremely likely it would, or could if it chose to, go generally unnoticed?

 

[Kyriakos]

That the vast majority of phenomena are unnoticed seems to be quite evidently the norm anyway. We only have consciousness of a small part of our entire mental world. We only know empirically a small part of our environment. Same goes for the earth in regards to its deeper levels nearer the core, and the oceanic abyss. And so on, for the macrocosm.

So it seems a lot more probable that if a god exists, that god is not really easy (or even possible) to ever notice, even with your belief system allowing somewhat for such a development (unless it is very heavy on the belief side of things, and naming phenomena as god in a not that logical way).

 

[strijder20]

I like this.

Imagine an entity with perfect knowledge. Isn't it possible that it sets a subatomic particle off on its journey at the beginning of the universe? And that this particle has only just now impacted my brain, setting off a train of thought that has resulted in me typing this post?

Given such an entity, isn't it extremely likely it would, or could if it chose to, go generally unnoticed?

Imagine a subatomic particle with zero knowledge at all. Isn't it possible that it sets off on its journey at the beginning of the universe all by itself? And that this particle has only just now impacted your brain, setting off a train of though that has resulted in me typing this post?

Subatomic particles usually don't affect your brain much at all, by the way.

 

[Borachio]

It's flimsy logic, I know. Just a rambling musing, that's all.

 

[Gucumatz]

But thats not what the idea states. It states what you stated Borachio - but importantly also that new "chaos" continues to impact us today, but its harder to trace back mathematically than the chaos that affected the "primordial atom". In this way of thinking, God's work isn't in the particle itself, but rather in the subtle influences constantly taking place since the beginning of conceptual time to now. Conceptual time is another mathematical oddity too - cause and effect requiring time to exist. Chaos also can explain that

 

[Calvinist]

voted agnosticism pure, but of course the answer depends on what you mean be god. Most people, when asking that question, are really referring to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, which I know does not exist.

How do you know?

So, I think that all positions actually have evidence. I just don't think that all the evidence is equal, and I think that 'evidence' for some positions more strongly fits into other world views.

For example, people who are praying can get a spiritual experience. They count this as evidence for a god. I think that psychology and naturalism gives a better explanation for this experience.

Also, the phrase "you cannot prove or disprove God" is only actually true if God does not exist. If Russell's teapot is actually there, then it IS possible (eventually) to prove that it is there.

Except that God isn't necessarily visible. That said, at the Second Coming everyone will know that God does exist. It will, however, be too late at that point.

 

[El_Machinae]

You've just admitted that God is visible! Sure, during the 2nd Coming, but that doesn't preclude the idea that God could make himself visible now. From the stories of Elijah to the story of a doubting Thomas, Christians describe a god that is quite capable of making itself known. If you didn't believe that there was actual evidence for God, I doubt you'd be a Christian. The only time God could actually NOT make himself visible is if He didn't actually exist.

I mean, the Bible is evidence for God. It's a bunch of first-hand and anonymous third-hand reports of evidence for God. I just don't find it to be very compelling, and find that there are more parsimonious naturalistic explanations.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That said, at the Second Coming everyone will know that God does exist.

It's true. At my second coming I usually invoke God.

Been a long time since I invoked God

 

[Borachio]

The only time God could actually NOT make himself visible is if He didn't actually exist.

I don't mean to be picky (in fact, I do), since I mostly agree with you. But given God's omnipotence, and everything, the mere fact of his not existing isn't going to stop him, is it?

 

[PhroX]

I don't mean to be picky (in fact, I do), since I mostly agree with you. But given God's omnipotence, and everything, the mere fact of his not existing isn't going to stop him, is it?

Omnipotence doesn't neccesarily mean the ability to do anything - instead it's generally taken to mean the ability to do anything that's logically consistent/possible. And doing something while not existing is not logically consistent, so he doesn't have to be able to do that. Or something.

 

[Borachio]

Well...

Your "God" is just a wuss. And I doubt his existence.

My "God" is quite literally omnipotent. And she transcends existence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Anselm! Glad you rejoined the forum!

And doing something while not existing is not logically consistent, so he doesn't have to be able to do that. Or something.

My shadow can scare my dog. Does a shadow exist? Is 'scaring a dog' doing something?

 

[PhroX]

I dunno, I'm not a philosopher, I was just parroting something I read elsewhere

 

[Calvinist]

You've just admitted that God is visible! Sure, during the 2nd Coming, but that doesn't preclude the idea that God could make himself visible now. From the stories of Elijah to the story of a doubting Thomas, Christians describe a god that is quite capable of making itself known. If you didn't believe that there was actual evidence for God, I doubt you'd be a Christian. The only time God could actually NOT make himself visible is if He didn't actually exist.

I mean, the Bible is evidence for God. It's a bunch of first-hand and anonymous third-hand reports of evidence for God. I just don't find it to be very compelling, and find that there are more parsimonious naturalistic explanations.

Of course God can make himself visible. I'm not saying he couldn't, I'm saying he doesn't want to. Considering my username, are you smat enough to figure out why that might be so?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, actually the 'why' is beyond me. I cannot envision why a god would want to behave in the way you describe God behaving. I can certainly imagine a god that does behave in such a way, but not the 'why'.

But I'm sure the reasons would be analogous to 'ineffable'.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Of course God can make himself visible. I'm not saying he couldn't, I'm saying he doesn't want to. Considering my username, are you smat enough to figure out why that might be so?

I'm very happy to concede I'm not nearly smart enough and I'd like to hear why God wants to be represented by all kinds of denominations which make different claims to what God wants

How am I to decide which one is right?

 

[Borachio]

This is just a guess, but is it Calvinism?