Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[Kyriakos]

But then you are still not left with a good reason to believe that it is true, making the overall situation one of "Hey, we don't have a good reason to believe this stuff"



But that's not a reason to believe that something is true at all. It's just wishful thinking.

It'd be like me wishing that my chocolate cake will exist after I eat it, because it looks so tasty.

It'd be like me wishing that Earth was the centre of the Universe, etc.

The chocolate being tasty has little relation to the psyche being far more complicated than it could theoretically have been. As for the earth being the center of the universe, there have been geocentric theories in the ancient past, and some invloved high math at the time. What is more remarkable is that they were said to actually produce correct calculations of some phenomena in the planets. Does this mean they were true? No, but it means they were not something of poor intellectual significance either imo.

We shall all find out in the end, if there is an afterlife or not. And let me stress again that this is no simple issue, nor a game of thought, it is very significant for the overall thinking world of every individual.

But i am always suspicious of people who have a strong, negative belief or view on this issue. Granted not all can understand all points of view, but why want to perpetuate something that robs another person of all hope? And by this i am not supporting a nihilistic position, that one should not care about life here since the afterlife is what it is all about, such a position would have been repulsive to me even if it was true. But i do note that some degree of agnosticism can make the wondering part more livable. Now it depends on how much you want or need a more livable mentality, if you view it as something that brings about some chasm in your logical thinking.
But logic, in non epistemic matters, ie in those matters which are frequently called "life wisdom" matters, is Always partial to how one can feel his life is better. So for me personally it just seems that agnosticism happens to fit in better with my life plan anyway, much like being in a unlit room and having the view that vipers surround you would tend to make you not move at all, whereas being of the view that nothing is there would make it easier to try to find an exit, nomatter if that exist ultimately exists or not

 

[kochman]

Oh man.. this is gonna be good! Write this out, please Let's see your mastery of logic and reason.

see below

There is tons of evidence for it, though. Clearly you don't really know enough about it to comment.

The connections that have been made and science that has evidence are not nearly sufficient for explaining the entire theory.

And, continuing on, to perhaps post big bang...
There is always the missing link...

The latest scientific theory I have heard for how we went from inanimate objects (rocks, gas, etc) to animate (animals)... since there is absolutely no good scientific evidence to show how... an asteroid from some far off system delivered life...
This is painful, because it still doesn't answer the question of where the missing link came into existence (whether it originated on earth or not)... it just shows that scientists have no idea whatsoever, so they invented something that sounds reasonable...
But has zero evidence to support it... None at all.
This is not the only portion of the theory that is unsupported, but I would hardly be the first to list these out... there was already a thread devoted to it...

Bottom line, Big Bang Theory is just a theory... just as the existence of God is a theory.
However, at least with the existence of God, individuals can actually feel it personally... and it's not just SWAGs in that case.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh god. You don't even know what a scientific theory is.

Never mind. I give up. You win. Whatever.

 

[kochman]

Nice cop out! I especially like how you make it seem as though I am too uneducated for you to even talk too... rather than confront that portion of science's version of "creationism" idea.

 

[warpus]

The chocolate being tasty has little relation to the psyche being far more complicated than it could theoretically have been.

You say this like it's a fact!

But i am always suspicious of people who have a strong, negative belief or view on this issue. Granted not all can understand all points of view, but why want to perpetuate something that robs another person of all hope?

If you want to believe that there is an afterlife because it gives you hope, then great! I won't stop you from believing what you want to believe.

There just isn't any evidence nor any other reason to think that anything like the afterlife might exist, and to me personally believing something that is likely to be false for the simple reason of making myself feel better is not a very good way of going about things. So I don't.

see below

I looked, and I didn't see anything resembling an explanation how you went from point A (evidence) to point B (acceptance that the afterlife exists) and an analysis of how this is more logical and scientific than the big bang theory, which is what you initially claimed, and is what I asked for.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No. It just seems to me that someone who is criticising a concept: scientific theory, would know what the concept he is criticising actually means.

Because neither the Big Bang, nor the Origin of Life are scientific theories.

Besides: now you get to ignore that "register in the home town" bit, so I wouldn't complain if I were you.

 

[kochman]

There just isn't any evidence nor any other reason to think that anything like the afterlife might exist

True... that is, true beyond the stuff you are ignoring or personally decided isn't related evidence...
Wait, that doesn't make it true, that makes it opinion. Nothing more... uninformed opinion at that.

 

[kochman]

No. It just seems to me that someone who is criticising a concept: scientific theory, would know what the concept he is criticising actually means.

Because neither the Big Bang, nor the Origin of Life are scientific theories.

True, they are not "scientific", because there is no science to back them.

You really wanted to derail the debate over that???

Cop out.

 

[Kyriakos]

You say this like it's a fact!



If you want to believe that there is an afterlife because it gives you hope, then great! I won't stop you from believing what you want to believe.

There just isn't any evidence nor any other reason to think that anything like the afterlife might exist, and to me personally believing something that is likely to be false for the simple reason of making myself feel better is not a very good way of going about things. So I don't.

Well, no need to try to reduce the other person's argument to merely hope. It is not at all what i typed. I even gave you a symbolism of my stance, the unlit room in which we both are (in different unlit rooms) and the one is sure there is something negative inside it (which stands for utter annihilation in the end of our life) while the other is agnostic as to what exists and does not exist in unlit territory (agnosticism in the issue of an afterlife). I went on to note that the second person is in better position to survive inside the room, and even get out, IF there is an exit (which symbolizes the possibility that none of this actually matters, cause there might be no afterlife anyway)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

True, they are not "scientific", because there is no science to back them.

You really wanted to derail the debate over that???

Right.

The latest scientific theory I have heard for how we went from inanimate objects (rocks, gas, etc) to animate (animals)

Cop out

Funny how I copped out after addressing your post isn't it? Would have been smarter of me to do so before, right? Guess I'm not that smart.

 

[warpus]

True... that is, true beyond the stuff you are ignoring or personally decided isn't related evidence...

What evidence? I haven't seen *any* posted in this thread. Please link me to some peer-reviewed evidence, if it exists....

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Granted not all can understand all points of view, but why want to perpetuate something that robs another person of all hope?

I want to react to this because this is the last thing I want to do. The claim you'll hear me up in arms about is that there is objective evidence for the positive claim of an afterlife. And only so for argument's sake.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, there's no first hand account of the empty tomb. There're accounts that some people were told about an empty tomb (namely, Paul), but that's not nearly the same thing. Paul is greatly separated from the events in the tomb. Most unfortunately, the other authors who describe the empty tomb are known to be willing to invent descriptions for events that had no witnesses, as if they were factual. It's all 'friend of a friend' stuff. It's as compelling as a single UFO account

While the Big Bang is 'just a theory', there are order and orders of magnitude of evidence that are parsimonious with this theory. In fact, if someone doubts the Big Bang, I'd highly suggest that they watch many more scientific documentaries on the topic. It's extremely interesting, if you like knowing stuff.

 

[warpus]

Well, no need to try to reduce the other person's argument to merely hope. It is not at all what i typed. I even gave you a symbolism of my stance, the unlit room in which we both are (in different unlit rooms) and the one is sure there is something negative inside it (which stands for utter annihilation in the end of our life) while the other is agnostic as to what exists and does not exist in unlit territory (agnosticism in the issue of an afterlife). I went on to note that the second person is in better position to survive inside the room, and even get out, IF there is an exit (which symbolizes the possibility that none of this actually matters, cause there might be no afterlife anyway)

Okay, so hope and symbolism... neither of which are good reasons to think that something might be true.

 

[Kyriakos]

It just seems possible that the main argument against an agnostic position in this stems from the strong atheistic position that by itself is founded on lack of something (evidence) and obviously not real evidence existing in favor of it. Which is why i deem it 'wrong' to attack agnosticism when you have only so little going for your own view, apart from a general plea to science (i think that all are in favor of science, after all, moreover in Greek science is termed Episteme, which literally means :that which is looked over" so peer review is a fundamental part of science and epistemic thought). But there are issues in which human logic cannot arrive at a definite answer, and i am noting that having a strong view on them, be it positive or negative, seems to be, by and large, 'equally unfounded'.

 

[timtofly]

Even more interesting than an after life is the question, does time stop relative to a person dying? If one just ceases to exist, does existence depend on time? If time stopped, would we all cease to exist? If we could travel faster than light, would time cease to exist? Going to a different Galaxy would we even be able to explain time to another alien race? If there was a colony on the moon or mars, would we survive on "earth time"? Is time relegated to light and darkness? Is it God's fault we have light and darkness and time itself?

 

[kochman]

Right.
Funny how I copped out after addressing your post isn't it? Would have been smarter of me to do so before, right? Guess I'm not that smart.

OK, so, do you care to address that situation? The missing link?
Or do you just want to drone on about semantics?

What evidence? I haven't seen *any* posted in this thread. Please link me to some peer-reviewed evidence, if it exists....

It was already covered, in this thread... look a few posts back and I list some things very clearly.
You preferring to ignore it or not accept it doesn't invalidate it...

Actually, there's no first hand account of the empty tomb. There're accounts that some people were told about an empty tomb (namely, Paul), but that's not nearly the same thing. Paul is greatly separated from the events in the tomb. Most unfortunately, the other authors who describe the empty tomb are known to be willing to invent descriptions for events that had no witnesses, as if they were factual. It's all 'friend of a friend' stuff. It's as compelling as a single UFO account

While the Big Bang is 'just a theory', there are order and orders of magnitude of evidence that are parsimonious with this theory. In fact, if someone doubts the Big Bang, I'd highly suggest that they watch many more scientific documentaries on the topic. It's extremely interesting, if you like knowing stuff.

The tomb being empty is now in dispute? Really?
It was empty, despite being guarded by Roman sentries... how?
Let's say there are no first hand accounts, which isn't true... if there was, does that make it so you would believe? What if someone lied?
The point is, too many people saw Jesus after the resurrection for it to be false. If you prophesy your own death, not a huge deal... He could feel the heat coming for Him. If you prophesy your resurrection, that's a pretty important, and unique deed.

So, your answer is, if you watch more TV, you will get it better? Ok...

 

[warpus]

It just seems possible that the main argument against an agnostic position in this stems from the strong atheistic position that by itself is founded on lack of something (evidence) and obviously not real evidence existing in favor of it.

It isn't an agnostic position. It's just the default "There isn't a good reason to think that it might be true, so let's not think that it might be true unless we discover a good reason for thinking such a thing"

By the way, it's impossible to prove atheism with evidence. You can't prove that something as undefined as God does not exist.

Which is why i deem it 'wrong' to attack agnosticism when you have only so little going for your own view, apart from a general plea to science (i think that all are in favor of science, after all, moreover in Greek science is termed Episteme, which literally means :that which is looked over" so peer review is a fundamental part of science and epistemic thought). But there are issues in which human logic cannot arrive at a definite answer, and i am noting that having a strong view on them, be it positive or negative, seems to be, by and large, 'equally unfounded'.

Hey, as an agnostic I agree with your basic premise here. But that's not to say that "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we all had guardian angels? And they're invisible? Yeah! I bet that's true" is a good way to arrive at truth.

It was already covered, in this thread... look a few posts back and I list some things very clearly.
You preferring to ignore it or not accept it doesn't invalidate it...

I really haven't seen any peer-reviewed evidence being discussed in this thread at all..

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It just seems possible that the main argument against an agnostic position in this stems from the strong atheistic position that by itself is founded on lack of something (evidence) and obviously not real evidence existing in favor of it. Which is why i deem it 'wrong' to attack agnosticism when you have only so little going for your own view, apart from a general plea to science (i think that all are in favor of science, after all, moreover in Greek science is termed Episteme, which literally means :that which is looked over" so peer review is a fundamental part of science and epistemic thought). But there are issues in which human logic cannot arrive at a definite answer, and i am noting that having a strong view on them, be it positive or negative, seems to be, by and large, 'equally unfounded'.

I'm not attacking agnosticism. I am an agnostic. But only just from a practical point of view, if I have to take into account every thing I cannot disprove, I'll go nuts. Anyone would. So, for sanity sake I don't.

And you shouldn't dismiss that general plea to science so easily, when it's what we do all the time. If I tell you I am God, you have no evidence against this. Still, you'd rightfully dismiss the claim until I have something you can observe that validates my claim.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not attacking agnosticism. I am an agnostic. But only just from a practical point of view, if I have to take into account every thing I cannot disprove, I'll go nuts. Anyone would. So, for sanity sake I don't.

And you shouldn't dismiss that general plea to science so easily, when it's what we do all the time. If I tell you I am God, you have no evidence against this. Still, you'd rightfully dismiss the claim until I have something you can observe that validates my claim.

True, but i think i have already replied to this before, by saying that in the absence of real proof either way, it is perhaps fruitful to allow other variables, or links to other variables, to influence one's thought of such issues. The other variable here being both a positive (if not utterly related one) one (the seemingly not explainable by pure darwinism hyper-ability of the human mind) and a negative one (that in the absense of some hard science, what makes one live better plays a part as well in what one thinks).

I already noted the position of these 'reasons'. "Give me somewhere to stand upon and i shall move the world" said Archimedes;it seems that sometimes we have to build our own ground, and to dismiss any such ground-building may be a bad stance, if not founded by hard evidence on its own part