Support NeoGAF

[HiredN00bs]

You can't be sure that God does not exist, simple as that.

If you are i would be very intersted to know your thoughts about this, even with PM.

In my experience, Christians often want to pull the discussion to private spaces. It's like I'm about to be dealt illicit drugs.

Don't turn your brain off
Accept evidence
Reject faith
Elect philosophies that do only good in the real world

 

[Fenderputty]

You're assuming they aren't because of whatever preconceived definition of God you already have. There's a rich history of different perspectives on what could constitute God, pantheism, being the one I am talking about.

But yes,God would be socks. More realistically presented- socks would be a part of God.

Can you explain what the point of belief is at this point? The concept God is everything seems incredibly vague. How does one extend this into worship and why?

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Hope =/= belief. I dont believe in things without evidence. I dont pretend to know things I dont know.

I wouldn't argue against that, personally. But evidence isn't simple in any form. Descartes meditations left him with the foundation of "I think therefore I am" and arguably further to "I think that I think therefore I think that I am". So basically proof is only through the eyes of the subject, therefore anything you believe has proof is just as absurd as the next.

The difference between a ball rolling and the universe is that we have no idea about the nature of the universe, but we know for sure how a ball works. Energy is well documented and explained. Saying that a force must have exerted itself on the ball and caused it to roll is a pretty logical theory. Even them you can't say its true though. With the universe, we don't know much about the nature of time or space or how they work. We do know there is some pretty trippy shit at the quantum level. For all we know, the universe could have neither existed forever or had a god create it. Instead time itself could have been a part of the big bang, therefore negating the need to ask what caused the big bang since there was nothing before it. Saying a spiritual man that has a son who walks on water and can raise himself from the dead as an explanation for the universe existing is about as irrational as it gets. Saying that a force separate from our reality, maybe from a black hole in another universe, causing the big bang might be an interesting idea though.

How can you know how a ball works if you don't know about the nature of the Universe first? We can make subjective conclusions through scientific research, but it all still goes back to the fact that if there is no foundation, any proof or understanding of anything is unavoidably moot.

 

[Air]

I dont make assumptions on the existance of things that havent been shown to exist, I'm merely going with the colloquial definition of a god that creates, thinks, and intervenes etc... to what end are you defining god as the universe? We already have a word for it, it's "universe".

I'm saying the Universe = God. Or can be thought of that way. We may have a word for it now, but that wasn't always the case, and even if it were- is it impossible to have two names describe the same thing? Never had a nickname before?

 

[Sorc3r3r]

All I can really say OP is not to sweat it. Life is too short to worry about whether or not there is a god or an afterlife. Because if you spend all your time worrying about a hypothetical next life, you'll miss out on what's happening in this life. The one that truly matters.

You say that you almost find it a crime to convince those within religion to leave it. To that I reply, life without knowledge is death in disguise, and detaching yourself from reality to live in willful ignorance is just that.


Show me a single scientist that has any form of evidence to lend credence to the theory of a gods existence.

Newton believed in God.
But there are plenty out there, you really believe that all scientists are agnostic or atheist?It isn't a way not to link you some site, is that the logical arguments besides the God existence are totally rational and can be embraced without contradiction.

 

[Salih]

1. There is zero actual evidence of God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8m6l7hy_xo

 

[blitzcloud]

Because we should strive to be better than comforting ourselves with delusions. We have developed a very good method for solving the mysteries of the universe, we will never know all of the answers, but making shit up demeans us.

Why?

You die with the comfort of mind of being "alive" later.

Why do we have to know all the answers?

What joy does discovering planets you'll never even see bring you. Oh shit there's a giant marble in the universe, my life is complete now. Fast forward 10 thousand years: they found a way to get there, and there's nothing/there's something. How did this improve your life, given you're here for limited time?

See why people are free to think however they want? Even if it's "delusions"? By the way, scientists can also have "delusions", it isn't exclusively a religious thing. Every single person can have delusions in different aspects of their life.

 

[dakun]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8m6l7hy_xo

you contributed absolutely nothing to this thread.

 

[Arthrus]

OP, I've been in your place and have experienced how hard it can be to escape from your own thoughts about mortality. I thought about making a similar thread two years ago.

What you describe was for me a six month mental health ordeal that evolved into a series of anxiety attacks and a fear of sleeping. At its worst, which lasted two months, I would wake up literally every night, 90 minutes after falling asleep. I think my brain was confusing deeper sleep cycles for the process of dying and woke me up with surges of adrenaline and a not-ready-to-wake brain that was disoriented, confused, and scared. The adrenaline kept me awake for several hours and this inability to sleep shut down my whole life. With my own fear of death, an even worse fear of seeing family members dying or suffering took form. Knowing that everyone inevitably dies and that it's not a pleasant processes made it that much harder to stomach. My psychologist wasn't useful at all. He basically just told me that it was completely rational to be petrified of these things and to take it as a sign that I was sane. Reassurance wasn't really what I needed. Rather, I needed to find ways to escape from the thoughts so I could go back to living my life happily and not spending every minute scared of the inevitable.

Here's what worked for me:
(1) Spending as little time by alone as possible. Talking to friends, doing activities with them, etc. Having a significant other who lives with you helps tremendously, and roommates could possibly help too (at first, I lived alone, then I had a girlfriend who stayed over some nights).
(2) When alone, escapism and particularly stuff that made light of life was a godsend. I watched several seasons of Family Guy, American Dad, and other light-hearted comedy that normally doesn't interest me, and I would leave it running on a very long sleep timer while I lay in bed.
(3) Being "alone" had very little to do with how many people were actually around. The thoughts crept into my mind at the gym and in classes when I was surrounded by anonymous individuals. In these circumstances, sitting next to a friend or inviting them to work out was usually helpful. Not always, but usually.

I decided to speak with my friends about it, since I needed to spend time with them to avoid finding myself at home for 5-6 hours before bed some nights. Everyone I spoke with was supportive and none of them judged me for my mental illness. Only a few of them really understood or could relate, but they all recognized that their role was to be there for me and at the very least listen. I encourage you to speak with your non-religious friends about how your thoughts bother you.

Finally, a lot of good things did come out of those dark thoughts. One of my friends, whose family didn't tend to live past 60, had been diagnosed with cancer right around that time (at the age of 22). He encouraged me to pursue every idea I'd thought about, but hadn't actively pursued. He helped me to start a D&D group that has been meeting weekly ever since. I started online dating and met my girlfriend within a month. It's now two years later and we're living together happily. I also ran a student government and joined a club, and though I've since moved on to other things, I kept a lot of friends who I met through those activities.

TL;DR
Spend time with family, friends, and escapism to keep your mind away from thoughts of mortality. Make the most of these thoughts by finding ways of living a more fulfilling life. Even if those lifestyle changes don't make you feel better right away, they can do significant good for your long-term happiness.

 

[nortonff]

I feel exactly the same away. And it's not good at all.

 

[ReadingRambo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8m6l7hy_xo

Well that settles it.

 

[Air]

Can you explain what the point of belief is at this point? The concept God is everything seems incredibly vague. How does one extend this into worship and why?

You don't have to extend it to worship, but if you wanted to, one way you could take it is like the stoics. There are plenty of ways, but it would be up to the individual.

That said, this is what I mean when I talk about people basing their definitions on preconceived notions of what God are. It's not bad per se, but the idea is that not all of the attributes we assume God should have are necessary for God to exist at all. God could be the sum total of it all or whatever. I wouldn't call it vague either, it just would be a fact of the ecosystem we live in.

 

[GustyGardens]

I don't know where to begin with this. This is patently untrue.

Many priests and religious people dove into science and seeking to understanding the world BECAUSE of their faith. Many of the early discoveries that led to understanding carbon dating for example were made by priests.

Your experiences of religion are not true for all religious people and it does not line up with history. Are there cases of this being true? Absolutely. Is there a disturbing trend of this in modern thinking? YES. But it is not as wide and sweeping as you claim.

Agreed.

There are quite a few religious people in family that understand evolution and science in general, but hold on to their faith because it gives them peace and hope.

For many people, religion doesn't define them, it helps them cope with things they feel they don't have the strength handle on their own. They perceive God as a friend and counselor, rather than a deity. For them, that works and helps them overcome their obstacles. There are billions of people on this planet that feel can't find their place, or feel lonely. Religion gives them a sense of community. It gives them a place to feel comforted.

To the OP, religion may not be for you, but you may need to talk to someone that will be understanding and listen to your fears. If you really feel like you need to guidance from a religion figure, you may find yourself in a nearby church asking to speak with a priest. Despite what people might tell you, they're quite open to respectfully talking with those that aren't part of the church.

Alternatively, you could seek out a counselor to hear you out. Even a close friend that would sympathize with you. Like most people here, I'm not a religious person, but I have a friend that understands me and is willing to listen.

 

[Amir0x]

I'm saying the Universe = God. Or can be thought of that way. We may have a word for it now, but that wasn't always the case, and even if it were- is it impossible to have two names describe the same thing? Never had a nickname before?

what does Universe God do? Does it have thoughts? Is it taking an active role in our lives, outside of the fact that we must therefore be God too (if, indeed, the universe is God)?

And if not, if it isn't some supernatural being and it's just another word for the universe and all the natural processes contained therein, I'm not sure why we even need to describe it in abstract religious terms.

It's the universe, and we can and have been explaining all its properties with science. No worship required. No belief required. Nothing special required at all, except for existence to be as astonishing as it always has been.

Why do Christians always want to pull the discussion to private spaces?

It's like I'm about to be dealt illicit drugs.

It's actually a very common conversion technique, and it applies to most religious conversion attempts. In essence, what you do is try to 'draw' the target away from other voices that could persuade them otherwise. In real life, religions often do this by suggesting that reading materials about God not approved by the faith is equivalent to reading apostate material. They'll say things like "if you're reading something and it's making you doubt your faith, then you know it's Satan working on you and it must not be from God." They'll implore you not to do the type of extensive research required to put to death their outrageous claims, because there's so many "false prophets."

Telling someone to discuss this subject over PM is an attempt to draw someone into isolation wherein the faithful is the only voice on the subject that they hear, and ease someone more easily into transition to such absurd beliefs by discussing it on a human 1-on-1 level. "This person seems pretty reasonable to me, I mean they're so nice. Maybe they are onto something..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8m6l7hy_xo

*watches*

So I repeat, there is zero actual evidence of God. Moving on.

EDIT:

lmfao at

"They have certainly become arrogant within themselves, and become insolent with great insolence."

 

[riskVSreward]

I've seen god work with starvation and aids in Africa and I'm not impressed.

 

[ReadingRambo]

Why?

You die with the comfort of mind of being "alive" later.

Why do we have to know all the answers?

What joy does discovering planets you'll never even see bring you. Oh shit there's a giant marble in the universe, my life is complete now. Fast forward 10 thousand years: they found a way to get there, and there's nothing/there's something. How did this improve your life, given you're here for limited time?

See why people are free to think however they want? Even if it's "delusions"? By the way, scientists can also have "delusions", it isn't exclusively a religious thing. Every single person can have delusions in different aspects of their life.

So your suggesting that we should all kid ourselves because we probably won't live long enough to travel to another habitable planet? Or something? I'm sorry, most intellectually honest people can't make themselves believe something that there is absolutely no evidence to support.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Well OP, I should say firstly that believing in God does not equate to believing in Heaven. God is not an easily definable concept for people like me that believe in God but at the same time not at all religious. Also, what you believe is a choice. And of course, we make these kinds of choices based on the evidence. If it's something you really do wish you believed in, I'd recommend taking up Yoga/Meditation/Tai-Chi lessons. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather allows you to see/feel something inside that you probably haven't before. Whether that turns out to be "God" is another matter, but if anything, it can help you find inner peace.

Spoiler

Yoga actually means "Union with God" Yo = You. Ga = God.

 

[Alienous]

I've seen god work with starvation and aids in Africa and I'm not impressed.

You wouldn't want to chill with him forever then, I take it?

 

[riskVSreward]

I'm saying the Universe = God. Or can be thought of that way. We may have a word for it now, but that wasn't always the case, and even if it were- is it impossible to have two names describe the same thing? Never had a nickname before?

Ok so you define god as the universe and therefore you believe in god? I believe in the universe too...

 

[Sorc3r3r]

that's a mute argument if you believe in most Gods of religions though .. obviously if you believe in the Old Testament God he has a very real impact on the natural world with him suspending many natural laws in order for certain events to happen. (just think Jesus) So obviously it's not that out of reach in those cases to make a clear argument.

Anything that has an impact on our world should be scientifically measurable or observable.. just going by the number of people that believe in miracles and stuff that is impossible if you believe in science can be determined as either true or false.

God itself outside the realm of the pure intellectual speculation, and for the very nature of the scientific method that's it about measurable phenomenons can't be or ever be proven as a fact.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

i always like amusing myself with the idea that if the multiverse is real and there are an infinite number of universes that in one of these other universes the second I die some other version of me must wake up somewhere else.

but i don't really have an investment in it one way or the other 'cause it's like shit if I'm going to know either way

Lately I've begun to view many religious constructs as attempts made by a primitive society to deal with their correct observation that future generations of humans will live increasingly fuller and richer lives, and will be able to achieve significantly more and experience much more than they could ever imagine.

If you live in a primitive society there's something about this realization that can be very upsetting. It can be a source of much envy and anger if you let it. It's similar to some of the discussions on GAF about how our generation will never experience space travel or will not live long enough to transfer our brains into robotic bodies that can exist for centuries, or make contact with alien civilizations, etc. The difference is the majority of us can take comfort in the many amazing achievements we do live to see, thanks to science and technology.

But for a primitive society, this realization that man's potential is practically limitless, given enough time, must have been a very bitter pill to swallow. Because essentially being born in one age or another is down to dumb luck. People living in the future are no more deserving of the amenities their period will bring than those living in the past, just as those unlucky individuals that were born in the past did nothing to deserve the cruel circumstances of their existence.

And so it may have become very comforting for some people in ancient times to believe in a universal truth: Something that they can have and enjoy right now, and that future generations will not be able to enjoy to a greater extent. This reinforces the idea, popular in all major religions, of a "book of universal wisdom" that contains all knowledge, even knowledge that is seemingly being discovered only today. Even knowledge not yet discovered.

And similarly it appears to make sense that clever leaders of this primitive world would invent the concept of a supreme god that is greater than any of us (and indeed all of us) as something we should dedicate our lives to. A being so great that it is deserving of entire civilizations to be built in its honor. A being so important that it's worship justifies inventing agriculture and craftsmanship and art and literature and music and all these things which take centuries to truly live up to their imagined potential - things that we may dedicate our entire lives to but will not live to enjoy, and those who do enjoy them could end up being so far removed from us in time they might as well be strangers. This is much like how we think of space travel today, and it's probably a big reason why people are reluctant to invest in it seriously.

 

[ReadingRambo]

God itself outside the realm of the pure intellectual speculation, and for the very nature of the scientific method that's it about measurable phenomenons can't be or ever be proven as a fact.

You don't get to make up your own rules when you can't win the game.

 

[TheOctodad]

Agreed.

There are quite a few religious people in family that understand evolution and science in general, but hold on to their faith because it gives them peace and hope.

For many people, religion doesn't define them, it helps them cope with things they feel they don't have the strength handle on their own. They perceive God as a friend and counselor, rather than a deity. For them, that works and helps them overcome their obstacles. There are billions of people on this planet that feel can't find their place, or feel lonely. Religion gives them a sense of community. It gives them a place to feel comforted.

To the OP, religion may not be for you, but you may need to talk to someone that will be understanding and listen to your fears. If you really feel like you need to guidance from a religion figure, you may find yourself in a nearby church asking to speak with a priest. Despite what people might tell you, they're quite open to respectfully talking with those that aren't part of the church.

Alternatively, you could seek out a counselor to hear you out. Even a close friend that would sympathize with you. Like most people here, I'm not a religious person, but I have a friend that understands me and is willing to listen.

To some degree I view religion as a shared communal language that allows us to speak of things that go beyond our basic uses of language.

To me religion is like poetry, music and art, it is true but on a different plane of existence than science.

I can't really scientifically explain why I cry at some songs or paintings. If you did, it still wouldn't capture the emotion, not really. I can't really prove the love I have for my wife with measurable data, but it exists.

I think as humans we need a shared language to speak of the inner life. Religion (in its healthiest form, which I admit is not the majority) provides us a shared language and experience of the inner journey.

 

[riskVSreward]

I wouldn't argue against that, personally. But evidence isn't simple in any form. Descartes meditations left him with the foundation of "I think therefore I am" and arguably further to "I think that I think therefore I think that I am". So basically proof is only through the eyes of the subject, therefore anything you believe has proof is just as absurd as the next.

Proof is demonstrable. If you have proof of god but cant demonstrate it, Id say your proof is worthless.

 

[Zimbardo]

who knows if we really cease to exist when we die. maybe we transfer to another dimension, or another universe to start over. maybe reincarnation is correct ...or maybe God is actually playing something like a really suped up version of Civilization and we're just characters in his game? who knows right?

science likes to try and have all the answers, but when it comes right down to it, they don't and never will. hell, they can't even cure the common cold after all this time ...and flip flop so many times on something as simple as coffee being good or bad for you. now i know science has accomplished some great things, but the human mind is never gonna be able to understand the mysteries of the universe. it'd be like an ant trying to solve some hardcore math ...probably worse.

so in the end, if you believe in God, or if you don't ...or if you think we're living in the Matrix ...your guess is as good as any scientist's. believe in what you want.

the end should be one interesting experience though when you think of the possibilities.

 

[Chezzymann]

How can you know how a ball works if you don't know about the nature of the Universe first? We can make subjective conclusions through scientific research, but it all still goes back to the fact that if there is no foundation, any proof or understanding of anything is unavoidably moot.

No its not, that's not how anything in science works. Its all about observation and testing. You start from nothing and learn about your surroundings first. We know the formula for velocity and speed and it is predictable. We can test it on balls rolling and have predictable outcomes. And as a result we can take that knowledge and make things like bicycles and cars and then nuclear power plants over time. That's how we know a ball works. We don't, however, have enough information on the nature if space time to make a logical theory on the creation of the universe yet. Even the big bang theory just is an explanation for why the universe is expanding. You dont need a foundation unifying everything in science before understanding things like physics. Its like a huge jigsaw puzzle. You start of with nothing and gradually find more pieces, and build off the knowledge others before you have found. Sometimes previous theories and explanations turn out to be wrong, but that is the nature of science and how we progress.

 

[Fenderputty]

You don't have to extend it to worship, but if you wanted to, one way you could take it is like the stoics. There are plenty of ways, but it would be up to the individual.

That said, this is what I mean when I talk about people basing their definitions on preconceived notions of what God are. It's not bad per se, but the idea is that not all of the attributes we assume God should have are necessary for God to exist at all. God could be the sum total of it all or whatever. I wouldn't call it vague either, it just would be a fact of the ecosystem we live in.

It's vague in the traditional sense of what God is though. The traditional God is clear on why we should have faith and worship. This seems more like an expansion of what God is because the God of religions fails as it's too narrow in scope due to the specificity of religion. So if we're trying to separate God from religion then I'm left at square one. God could be anything, the universe could be anything so I choose to toss my hands up and say, "beats the shit outta me".

 

[Ray Wonder]

Lately I've begun to view many religious constructs as attempts made by a primitive society to deal with their correct observation that future generations of humans will live increasingly fuller and richer lives, and will be able to achieve significantly more and experience much more than they could ever imagine.

If you live in a primitive society there's something about this realization that can be very upsetting. It can be a source of much envy and anger if you let it be. It's similar to some of the discussions on GAF about how our generation will never experience space travel or will not live long enough to transfer our brains into robotic bodies that can exist for centuries, or make contact with alien civilizations, etc. The difference is the majority of us can take comfort in the many amazing achievements we do live to see, thanks to science and technology.

But for a primitive society, this realization that man's potential is practically limitless, given enough time, must have been a very bitter pill to swallow. Because essentially being born in one age or another is down to dumb luck. People living in the future are no more deserving of the amenities their period will bring than those living in the past, just as those unlucky individuals that were born in the past did nothing to deserve the cruel circumstances of their existence.

And so it may have become very comforting for some people in ancient times to believe in a universal truth: Something that they can have and enjoy right now, and that future generations will not be able to enjoy to a greater extent. This reinforces the idea, popular in all major religions, of a "book of universal wisdom" that contains all knowledge, even knowledge that is seemingly being discovered only today. Even knowledge not yet discovered.

And similarly it appears to make sense that clever leaders of this primitive world would invent the concept of a supreme god that is greater than any of us (and indeed all of us) as something we should dedicate our lives to. A being so great that it is deserving of entire civilizations to be built in its honor. A being so important that it's worship justifies inventing agriculture and craftsmanship and art and literature and music and all these things which take centuries to truly live up to their imagined potential - things that we may dedicate our entire lives to but will not live to enjoy, and those who do enjoy them could end up being so far removed from us in time they might as well be strangers. This is much like how we think of space travel today, and it's probably a big reason why people are reluctant to invest in it seriously.

I just wanna say I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

In my experience, Christians often want to pull the discussion to private spaces. It's like I'm about to be dealt illicit drugs.

Don't turn your brain off
Accept evidence
Reject faith
Elect philosophies that do only good in the real world

Already done, but led me on the other side.

 

[Amir0x]

who knows if we really cease to exist when we die. maybe we transfer to another dimension, or another universe to start over. maybe reincarnation is correct ...or maybe God is actually playing something like a really suped up version of Civilization and we're just characters in his game? who knows right?

science likes to try and have all the answers, but when it comes right down to it, they don't and never will. hell, they can't even cure the common cold after all this time ...and flip flop so many times on something as simple as coffee being good or bad for you. now i know science has accomplished some great things, but the human mind is never gonna be able to understand the mysteries of the universe. it'd be like an ant trying to solve some hardcore math ...probably worse.

so in the end, if you believe in God, or if you don't ...or if you think we're living in the Matrix ...you're guess is as good as any scientist's. believe in what you want.

the end should be one interesting experience though when you think of the possibilities.

Scientists never claim to have all the answers and in fact love acknowledging they don't know it all. Like the famous saying goes, "the phrase 'I don't know' keeps scientists employed."

But what Science does do is fully understand the limitations of their knowledge. When they don't know something, they don't say "I know it's X." They say "I don't know", and then they proceed to contrive of various hypothesis' and experiments to try to solve that blank spot in their knowledge.

What religious people do is say they do know the truth, despite no evidence at all, and that what is required is complete devotion to the core of that truth that comes in the form of faith.

What is a more reasonable position: "I don't know" or "I do know, despite no evidence, and you must follow this or receive Y consequence."

 

[blitzcloud]

So your suggesting that we should all kid ourselves because we probably won't live long enough to travel to another habitable planet? Or something? I'm sorry, most intellectually honest people can't make themselves believe something that there is absolutely no evidence to support.

I said that if it brings ease of mind, a delusion isn't essentially bad. Essentially. Jehova witnesses not accepting blood, well that's just stupid as you will probably die from blood loss on an accident for example.

I have no problems with religious people that don't inflict pain to those that don't believe in their religion, let it be psychological pain or physical one.

People believing there's an afterlife will not stop progress of the human race on the scientific field. So I don't really see the problem. Some people will die being fooled that they will go to the amusement park of heaven, others die fooled with scientific false theories not being deemed false yet or with hypothesis not being proven but likely to be true that later become simply not true.

Asking everyone to put their mind in what has been scientifically proven is pretty fucking simple. I believe the apple will fall because gravity exists. Wow, daring. The exchange for being a safe player is having many answers missing and dying with those questions not answered yet.

To each it's own.

 

[dakun]

Already done, but led me on the other side.

care to share your evidence?

 

[dragonyeuw]

I've flipped back and forth on this topic over the years. I grew up in a religious background, but my own life experiences have long since opened up my eyes.

At this point in time, I'm willing to believe that some entity exists, on a plane of existence far beyond our understanding, that set off the chain of events that created our universe. I say willing to believe, because I don't have the evidence to prove or disprove one way or another. I do not, however, believe that this deity is something sitting above us all listening to our prayers and granting wishes at the snap of a finger. Life is too random, too much crime, disease, good things happening to bad people and the reverse, for me to conclude that a righteous spirit is 'up there' controlling everything.

My main problem with this eternal God debate is talking to hardcore believers who otherwise may be very rational, but when asked as to what fuels their belief system, the answer has always been of the 'because that's what I was raised to believe' variety.

 

[pixelation]

Doesn't work like that... you need to repent before you die. After you're gone you are screwed.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Already done, but led me on the other side.

You've rejected faith but believe in God based on evidence? The world is waiting for you to share it!

 

[Air]

what does Universe God do? Does it have thoughts? Is it taking an active role in our lives, outside of the fact that we must therefore be God too (if, indeed, the universe is God)?

This answer is dependent on the person. There are pantheists that believe the niverse is a conscious entity, and there are those who don't. Your last point is true. If the universe is God, we would directly be part of its constituents. There's a cool talk from a physicist about this (though I believe he classified himself as a panentheist, but I could be mistaken).

And if not, if it isn't some supernatural being and it's just another word for the universe and all the natural processes contained therein, I'm not sure why we even need to describe it in abstract religious terms.

While I already answered it above in the case that we would be God, if we are to go by your example, the idea would simply be about the persons comfort in expressing their worldview. It's more personal sounding than universe, no?

It's the universe, and we can and have been explaining all its properties with science. No worship required. No belief required. Nothing special required at all, except for existence to be as astonishing as it always has been.

Like I said to the other user, worship, or belief wouldn't be required to prove God's existence in this case. They'd be things you would just do because you felt it would enrich your life.

That said, my point in all of this is not to argue that pantheism is true or not, but that in these debates, we become so accustomed to looking at the world in one way that we neglect anything else can be possible. I don't agree with pantheism (past a certain degree), but learning about it has enriched my perspective on what God could or couldn't be, instead of simply going with what is popular, and neglecting alternative inputs. Perhaps OP will see this conversation and it'll enrich his perspective on God, because he can break away from what it has been traditionally defined as in our modern day.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

You can't be sure that God does not exist, simple as that.

If you are i would be very intersted to know your thoughts about this, even with PM.

You can't prove "anything" doesn't exist, the one making the claim has to have proof.

If you don't have proof, then your claim doesn't mean shit.

 

[ReadingRambo]

I said that if it brings ease of mind, a delusion isn't essentially bad. Essentially. Jehova witnesses not accepting blood, well that's just stupid as you will probably die from blood loss on an accident for example.

I have no problems with religious people that don't inflict pain to those that don't believe in their religion, let it be psychological pain or physical one.

People believing there's an afterlife will not stop progress of the human race on the scientific field. So I don't really see the problem. Some people will die being fooled that they will go to the amusement park of heaven, others die fooled with scientific false theories not being deemed false yet or with hypothesis not being proven but likely to be true that later become simply not true.

Asking everyone to put their mind in what has been scientifically proven is pretty fucking simple. I believe the apple will fall because gravity exists. Wow, daring. The exchange for being a safe player is having many answers missing and dying with those questions not answered yet.

To each it's own.

It's not daring to believe in bullshit. It's cowardice.

 

[dragonyeuw]

Lately I've begun to view many religious constructs as attempts made by a primitive society to deal with their correct observation that future generations of humans will live increasingly fuller and richer lives, and will be able to achieve significantly more and experience much more than they could ever imagine.

If you live in a primitive society there's something about this realization that can be very upsetting. It can be a source of much envy and anger if you let it. It's similar to some of the discussions on GAF about how our generation will never experience space travel or will not live long enough to transfer our brains into robotic bodies that can exist for centuries, or make contact with alien civilizations, etc. The difference is the majority of us can take comfort in the many amazing achievements we do live to see, thanks to science and technology.

But for a primitive society, this realization that man's potential is practically limitless, given enough time, must have been a very bitter pill to swallow. Because essentially being born in one age or another is down to dumb luck. People living in the future are no more deserving of the amenities their period will bring than those living in the past, just as those unlucky individuals that were born in the past did nothing to deserve the cruel circumstances of their existence.

And so it may have become very comforting for some people in ancient times to believe in a universal truth: Something that they can have and enjoy right now, and that future generations will not be able to enjoy to a greater extent. This reinforces the idea, popular in all major religions, of a "book of universal wisdom" that contains all knowledge, even knowledge that is seemingly being discovered only today. Even knowledge not yet discovered.

And similarly it appears to make sense that clever leaders of this primitive world would invent the concept of a supreme god that is greater than any of us (and indeed all of us) as something we should dedicate our lives to. A being so great that it is deserving of entire civilizations to be built in its honor. A being so important that it's worship justifies inventing agriculture and craftsmanship and art and literature and music and all these things which take centuries to truly live up to their imagined potential - things that we may dedicate our entire lives to but will not live to enjoy, and those who do enjoy them could end up being so far removed from us in time they might as well be strangers. This is much like how we think of space travel today, and it's probably a big reason why people are reluctant to invest in it seriously.

DEEP. That was a great read.

 

[-Ryn]

Amir0x dropping some truth bombs

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/mar/14-priest-physicist-would-marry-science-religion

Not saying you have to agree with it (or that I do), but they do exist and Polkinghorne isn't a slouch of a scientist either:

Not an attack on you, but that does not mean anything at all. A guy that believes in the scientific method that then joined the church does not equal out to a scientist having a rational belief in god.

There could be a variety of reasons for why he decided to join that church.

You can do both, FWIW.

You can ponder theory and philosophy yes, but that's different to letting it consume you and/or allowing yourself to believe in something conjured by a desire to live on.

Newton believed in God.
But there are plenty out there, you really believe that all scientists are agnostic or atheist?It isn't a way not to link you some site, is that the logical arguments besides the God existence are totally rational and can be embraced without contradiction.

Refer to my reply to Octodad please. And by the same token, Hitchens Razor.

Just because you can embrace something without contradiction does not make it rational or logical.

 

[riskVSreward]

That said, my point in all of this is not to argue that pantheism is true or not, but that in these debates, we become so accustomed to looking at the world in one way that we neglect anything else can be possible. I don't agree with pantheism (past a certain degree), but learning about it has enriched my perspective on what God could or couldn't be, instead of simply going with what is popular, and neglecting alternative inputs. Perhaps OP will see this conversation and it'll enrich his perspective on God, because he can break away from what it has been traditionally defined as in our modern day.

So you dont believe it then? Do you believe in a specific deity? None of the reasoning you present lends credence to any specific god. Also, it hasn't enriched my perspective of god but rather enriched my appreciation for dictionaries.

 

[jonnyp]

The absolute last thing I want to do is believe something out of pure blind faith, what a giant waste of time and energy.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

You don't get to make up your own rules when you can't win the game.

But is a fact, as you can't measures thoughts or ideas, will and intellect, i don't get what are you writing.

 

[Air]

It's vague in the traditional sense of what God is though. The traditional God is clear on why we should have faith and worship. This seems more like an expansion of what God is because the God of religions fails as it's too narrow in scope due to the specificity of religion. So if we're trying to separate God from religion then I'm left at square one. God could be anything, the universe could be anything so I choose to toss my hands up and say, "beats the shit outta me".

Our traditional understanding is based strongly on Judeo-Christian religions. There are plenty of religions that have preceded this. If I remember correctly, one theory of original religious belief was one of pantheism. I'm not shoehorning this definition into current religious definitions, I'm just bringing the idea and removing the religious obligations we've become familiar with. Because in the end, theoretically, if there is a God, isn't it possible that our definitions could have been a little right, and mostly wrong- or any other makeup?

That said, if that's how you choose to react to it, I could tell you I'd be puzzled. That's a pretty enormous notion imo. To each their own though.

So you dont believe it then? Do you believe in a specific deity? None of the reasoning you present lends credence to any specific god. Also, it hasn't enriched my perspective of god but rather enriched my appreciation for dictionaries.

I'm a penentheist. After a certain level, you could argue it becomes pantheism. I think it unfortunate instead of researching a bit more about this you default to bad quips.

 

[Pinko Marx]

I recently underwent the same kinds of feelings. Had a depressig existential crisis. There's a bit of a Pascalian wager I suppose in the way I found to think, but I decided to have an actual open mind and went through the arguments and evidences for the different religions. I realized my preconceptions of religion and religious people were far from reality and that contrary to popular belief, "spirituality" is actually growing on a global scale and how we're all reaching some sort of convergence between spirituality and science (http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...iritual_groups_move_toward_convergence-156528). I personally found a lot of convincomg arguments from the Christian side, particularly NT Wright's extensive research on the resurrection, but thats just me. I obviously still have my doubts, but the way I see it if there is no god then there's no objective standard to which we can compare any idea of good and evil so having a religion that is supposedly false is no "better" than being atheistic since "better" doesn't really exist if there is no god.

Idk, doubt your doubts. This may lead you to strengthen in your atheism or you may find believing in a deity is more reasonable than you initially thought.

A final note is that we're all going through this. We're all living in the same world and we're all gonna die. So hug and console yourself in another person. We're here for you.

So if a diety exists, what makes that diety be some almighty moral compass? Maybe it's just as fucked up as the rest of us. How do we know we're following the right one? Is there just one?
Too many questions we'll never know the answer to. I try not to worry about it and just make life on this earth as good as it can be for myself and the people I care for. Whatever comes next, I'll deal with it as it comes.

 

[blitzcloud]

It's not daring to believe in bullshit. It's cowardice.

Ok. whatever suits you best. i'm seeing the delusion you have of superiority because you know more rules of the universe than them, and feel proud enough to call them cowards in return. When you both will end up like bones or ashes. Truly important, yeah.

Specially in a society that remembers mass murderers more than scientists, unless they did a huge breakthrough discover

 

[shem935]

"Death is nothing to us since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not." -Epicurus

I like this quote and it has been echoed by others in the thread. I also took comfort in the writings on rebellion by Albert Camus. I would encourage you to read up on him. Broadly summarized his philosophy is that every self reflective person confronts the absurdity of life, most commonly in the form of their own impending death. Once confronted with this absurdity he addresses what he sees as the common responses of nihilism, religion, and suicide. He proposes that religion is a way to ignore life's inherent absurdity by finding meaning where there is none, suicide seeks to invalidate the terms of the equation, and nihilism invalidates the life of the individual. He argues instead that a constant state of rebellion is necessary against a universe that holds no meaning for us. That we should live in defiance of a universe that would snuff us out without a thought. He compares it to Sisyphus and his task of rolling the rock. That doomed by the gods(in our case the universe) to an eternity of meaningless labor Sisyphus instead of despairing would curse the gods and rebel in direct defiance. That as the boulder rolled back down Sisyphus would have a smile at the thought of his task ahead.

I am not sure how well I summarized so if anyone finds a flaw let me know.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

God itself outside the realm of the pure intellectual speculation, and for the very nature of the scientific method that's it about measurable phenomenons can't be or ever be proven as a fact.

how the hell would you know that?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Feels pretty simple to me: All, or nearly all cultures in human history have ideas about (G/g)od(s), spiritual realms, etc. Not a single one of them has any verifiable evidence of their belief system representing an accurate view of the "hidden" reality they attempt to understand and utilize in order to answer the "questions" of life.

Seeing that, I feel comfortable saying that God, god, gods, and all other ideas that have come out of religion re: the metaphysical are simply our own human ideas and are not truth in any meaningful sense of the word objectively.

Religion is important, and a part of nearly every culture, but IMO, it no more represents any kind of truth than one Italians and Mexicans arguing over whose food is better. It works for the people it works for, and the rest of us have our own weird things. I'm an atheist, but I certainly have rituals and traditions of my own, practiced either myself or with family, and that's all religion needs to be.

It's only really a problem when one's understanding of the answer to those big questions leads them to treating others like shit, or making declarative statements about reality that simply don't hold water.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

You can't prove "anything" doesn't exist, the one making the claim has to have proof.

If you don't have proof, then your claim doesn't mean shit.

My claim to be shit as the same odd the opposite claim to be shit.

So the both faith could be shit at the same time.
But both are based on speculation, without any hope to see them ever verified by a scientific method.