Conquer Club

Yeah, I see it as personal view point and I have no authority to make people think the same as me. But I do have personal opinion on the subject and at the same time trying to debat there being a god and no god, heaven and hell, and all that just seems like it just gets people upset and nothing changes (other than peoples contempt for eachother). But thats just my opinion.

On the contrary, if people can debate such a subject in a civilized manner, much good can come of it. Perhaps not always to ones engaged in the debate, but sometimes for those who view or listen to it. Of course, it also helps if both sides are open-minded and are not overly agressive. I know that the more I debate and think about such issues, the more firmly I believe what I believe. Sometimes, however, I must alter my thinking or revise my argument. If you are honestly seeking truth, it does seem likely that you will find it.

I agree with you there, but it seems the majority of people will not debate the issue in a civilized manner (with almost any topic). But for me I have my opinion on the whole subject and added in is my lack of interest in what happens after I die (the whole heaven and hell thing), more important is what should be done now and thats where what happens after you die comes in. Based on that most people get defensive and that is when the debate becomes a shouting match.

If you are honestly seeking truth, it does seem likely that you will find it.

I totally agree with that, but also people have to know that they are looking for truth and sometimes it seems as people are trying to prove their own belief and not find the truth to what the seek. On the subject of god I stand with agnostic becuase I don't believe there is or isn't a god but that the possiblity is there.

9, 10, 11, 12

Kill the non-believers... those guys suck... um-elve.

I've read your posts with interest Winter's Twilight. I didn't have time to responf to that massively expanding science v religion thread, but this one is slightly shorter... so perhaps I can address some of the points you raised here.

"If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." -Professor Haldane, Possible Worlds, p. 209

... I don't get the "I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true" part. Just because your brain is made of atoms or not, doesn't really affect the truth of something or not. It's just as likely that those atoms will have generated a logical understanding of something, as it is that some mystical human understanding has.

To qeee1:

But having a God explains nothing, you still have to ask where did God come from? And if God can simply "exist" for eternity then why can't "matter". I accept that from nothing comes nothing, but I don't see the link between that and the existance of God. If you look at what science is slowly revealing to us about how we got to where we are it's that all the complicated things in the world generally stem from something simpler, see evolution or the big bang. To have this giant complex God lurking behind it all just doesn't seem to make sense.

First and formost, it must be stated that both evolution and the big bang are both theories. These theories would probably not exist if there was not some kind of evidence that pointed to them.

The big bang theory is mostly based off of the fact that the galaxies and other matter in the universe are moving farther away from each other. (This does not explain what caused the big bang.) According to this theory, all of the matter that we know was once at a single point. It would be nonsense, however, that all matter at one point in space and time could possibly expand spontaniously into what is now known as the universe. According to most scientists, if enough matter is at one point in space and time, it would cause a hole in both space and time. (Black hole.) A hole is a lack of something. A lack of something cannot expand into what it is a lack of. According to the big bang theory, not only was all matter at one point, but space and time were also at this infinitely small point. (This complex universe may not have come from something simple after all.) A good question is, a point in what? Another good question is, how can something that is infinitely small become what we now know as the universe? The big bang theory does not explain what caused itself. The big bang may be the origin of the universe but what was the origin of the big bang?

Note: This "big bang" has never been observed and no event like it has ever been observed. It is merely an educated guess.

Evolution is also a theory. Some Christians believe that the evolution theory is true. According to such Christians, evolution is the way that God created the different species. They take the creation story in Genisis metaphorically. In the creation story in Genisis, life was created after the earth, and man was created as the last of the living creatures. I myself do not believe in evolution. This is just something that some Christians believe.

Sometimes, but not always, simple things do lie behind more complex things. What can be more simple than pure reality? A reality that exists in and of itself. A fact that requires no other facts to be true. The "I Am".

Evolution and the big bang are both theories, the existance of God is also a theory. In fact, just about every hypothesis derived by humanity is a theory, which relies upon some assumption about the way things work.

Even mathematics which seems completely theoretical relies on 8/9 basic assumptions known as the Zermelo-Frankel axioms, and from these all mathematics is derived.

Even your idea of pure reality... as expressed in the words: "I am" is based on assumptions, it assumes you are. Even Descartes idea of "I think therefore I am" is flawed as in the first word, he's already assumed his existance. Essentially what I'm getting at is that the idea that absolute and universal truths don't exist, without assumptions behind them.

That said... we can all deduce things that appear to be "true" from the world around us. And most of science is based on basic assumptions that would appear to be naturally true to nearly everyone. More theoretical science, like the big bang (not so much evolution as there's a hell of a lot of evidence for it), is based on slightly harder to accept assumptions. Oh and a black hole is not an absense of matter, it's matter so dense that its gravitational field overcomes the speed of light, meaning light can't escape.

Anyway to get back on track the point I'm making is... I have not experienced anything in this world to get me to logically conclude that it is likely there is a God.

As for whether the debate is worthwhile or not... I think it is. But like Winters Twilight, I think that anyone who enters the debate completely unwilling to change their "beliefs" or ideas is going to be a destructive presence.

On another (unrelated) note... do/did you post at any other forums Winters Twilight? Possibly ezboard ones? Oh and I've got exams next week so I will probably be delayed again responding.

I think hell is like earth under the republicans. Because how it was explained ot me in sunday school is taht jesus wanted people to choose right or wrong(free agency) and satan wanted everyone to be forced to do right. So wouldnt satan force you to do right in hell?

I have the answer to all your questions (and don't want to offend someone)

USA=HELL

reverend_kyle wrote:I think hell is like earth under the republicans. Because how it was explained ot me in sunday school is taht jesus wanted people to choose right or wrong(free agency) and satan wanted everyone to be forced to do right. So wouldnt satan force you to do right in hell?

What sunday school did you attend???? WOW! And your left wing bias doesn't help much either! lol

Satan wants to "force people to do right"??? You have got to be kidding. Satan opposes all that is right and just. Jesus wants you to "do right" but allows for free will.

God wants your love but ONLY if you give it freely. What good is love if it is forced? Could you imagine if a child loved their parent ONLY because the parent told them to? Thats not love.

... I don't get the "I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true" part. Just because your brain is made of atoms or not, doesn't really affect the truth of something or not. It's just as likely that those atoms will have generated a logical understanding of something, as it is that some mystical human understanding has.

I believe that what Haldane was trying to say was that if his thoughts and thinking were a result only of the random movement of molecules in his head, then his thoughts are random. He then seems to conclude that he cannot trust his thoughts if they are random, and thus he has no reason to think that his thoughts were random at all.

Even your idea of pure reality... as expressed in the words: "I am" is based on assumptions, it assumes you are. Even Descartes idea of "I think therefore I am" is flawed as in the first word, he's already assumed his existance. Essentially what I'm getting at is that the idea that absolute and universal truths don't exist, without assumptions behind them.

It is my opinion that the absolute and universal truths are the assumptions behind all arguments. They are the self evident truths that must be in order to prove or disprove anything. The idea of logic, for example, cannot be proved or disproved.

Oh and a black hole is not an absense of matter, it's matter so dense that its gravitational field overcomes the speed of light, meaning light can't escape.

I agree. There have been people (who claim to have authority) that I have heard discribe a black hole as a "hole" in space and time. I have since then read a few articles here and there describing a black hole in the same way. But yes, I have always agreed with those who describe it the way you did. I was trying to show that if a black hole is a "hole" in space and time, then it probably discredits the big bang theory. I am sure that there are probably different theories with a "big bang" as well.

One thing that I find interesting is that the big bang theory states that all space, time, and matter was at one point. But to say that it "was" at one point, implies a time, and to say that it was at a "point" implies a space for it to be in.

On another (unrelated) note... do/did you post at any other forums Winters Twilight? Possibly ezboard ones?

I have not posted on ezboard. This is actually the first forum that I have been very involved in. I am curious as to why you asked, though.

K, this'll be short:

WintersTwilight wrote:

... I don't get the "I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true" part. Just because your brain is made of atoms or not, doesn't really affect the truth of something or not. It's just as likely that those atoms will have generated a logical understanding of something, as it is that some mystical human understanding has.

I believe that what Haldane was trying to say was that if his thoughts and thinking were a result only of the random movement of molecules in his head, then his thoughts are random. He then seems to conclude that he cannot trust his thoughts if they are random, and thus he has no reason to think that his thoughts were random at all.

Hmm... what I'm trying to get at is that the understanding generated by those molecules is not purely random.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Even your idea of pure reality... as expressed in the words: "I am" is based on assumptions, it assumes you are. Even Descartes idea of "I think therefore I am" is flawed as in the first word, he's already assumed his existance. Essentially what I'm getting at is that the idea that absolute and universal truths don't exist, without assumptions behind them.

It is my opinion that the absolute and universal truths are the assumptions behind all arguments. They are the self evident truths that must be in order to prove or disprove anything. The idea of logic, for example, cannot be proved or disproved.

But... if something is an assumption, how can it be a truth? You say it's self evident... but what's self evident? Logic is a method of argument, that is useless unless applied to anything. It assumes things to be true in order to argue something.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Oh and a black hole is not an absense of matter, it's matter so dense that its gravitational field overcomes the speed of light, meaning light can't escape.

I agree. There have been people (who claim to have authority) that I have heard discribe a black hole as a "hole" in space and time. I have since then read a few articles here and there describing a black hole in the same way. But yes, I have always agreed with those who describe it the way you did. I was trying to show that if a black hole is a "hole" in space and time, then it probably discredits the big bang theory. I am sure that there are probably different theories with a "big bang" as well.

One thing that I find interesting is that the big bang theory states that all space, time, and matter was at one point. But to say that it "was" at one point, implies a time, and to say that it was at a "point" implies a space for it to be in.

I never really saw it as existing outside space and time. All matter was at one point, surrounded by nothingness. It's a theory to explain how we got here, based on the evidence around us (the movement of galaxies and such). But I'm no expert on the Big Bang theory or anything... and regardless I think we're getting sidetracked. Even if the theory is true it doesn't discount the existance of God. Perhaps God created this one point.

WintersTwilight wrote:

On another (unrelated) note... do/did you post at any other forums Winters Twilight? Possibly ezboard ones?

I have not posted on ezboard. This is actually the first forum that I have been very involved in. I am curious as to why you asked, though.

Ok, just wondering, I've encountered someone with a similar name to you before I think.

Hmm... what I'm trying to get at is that the understanding generated by those molecules is not purely random.

I think Haldane would agree with you.

But... if something is an assumption, how can it be a truth? You say it's self evident... but what's self evident? Logic is a method of argument, that is useless unless applied to anything. It assumes things to be true in order to argue something.

To assume that you exist is not a bad assumption. I see that you do not trust assumptions (even though you are assuming that assumptions are not truth). Self-evident truths are the basis of logic. They are the foundation of reason. All reason and logic are built on such truths. For example, there is a line between good and evil (I understand that people may differ about where to draw this line). It is a self-evident truth. You cannot prove that there is such a line, and you cannot disprove it. You must assume that such a line exists. The existance of the self is also a self-evident truth that must be assumed, otherwise logic has no meaning. Logic is the linking together of these self-evident truths to form a larger idea.

But I'm no expert on the Big Bang theory or anything... and regardless I think we're getting sidetracked. Even if the theory is true it doesn't discount the existance of God. Perhaps God created this one point.

I agree.



I would like to put forward a caution to those who seek truth: do not use a method of seeking that already implies a conclusion. What I mean by this is, "The nature of the field which is under investigation determines the approach and the method or methods which one must use in order to arrive at correct conclusions within that field. A method which is rightly applied to one field may be out of order when applied to another."* Not all reality can be grasped with forceps. If a man had been taught only about steam engines all of his life, and had never seen an electric motor. This man would soon find out that the workings of the electric motor can not be explained by one who leaves electricity out of consideration.


*James D. Bales, How Can Ye Believe, p. 7

WintersTwilight wrote:

Hmm... what I'm trying to get at is that the understanding generated by those molecules is not purely random.

I think Haldane would agree with you.

Ah, perhaps, but what I'm saying is that they're not random based on the principles on which evolution relies, and the idea that primitive sentient beings are better suited to environments, than those who are not sentient.

WintersTwilight wrote:

But... if something is an assumption, how can it be a truth? You say it's self evident... but what's self evident? Logic is a method of argument, that is useless unless applied to anything. It assumes things to be true in order to argue something.

To assume that you exist is not a bad assumption. I see that you do not trust assumptions (even though you are assuming that assumptions are not truth). Self-evident truths are the basis of logic. They are the foundation of reason. All reason and logic are built on such truths. For example, there is a line between good and evil (I understand that people may differ about where to draw this line). It is a self-evident truth. You cannot prove that there is such a line, and you cannot disprove it. You must assume that such a line exists. The existance of the self is also a self-evident truth that must be assumed, otherwise logic has no meaning. Logic is the linking together of these self-evident truths to form a larger idea.

To say there is a line between good and evil, implies the existance of good and evil, an assumption.

To me good and evil are merely concepts derived by humans that don't exist in any "ideal" form as there are always related to the materiality from which they are derived. They are material, not in the same sense that a stone is material, but in the way that they only have relevance when affecting material actions, be they the movement of molocules within a brain or the imprisionment of someone for being a sodomite.

You could say that there is a line between two mutually exclusive things which when united are omnipresent. (eg. in a 2d plane if A is the area above y=0 and B is the area below y=0, then there is a line between A and B and they also encompass the entire area of the field). That I'll agree with, as an obvious assumption, I'll also agree that I exist. I've no problem with obvious assumptions. But what I'm saying is that the existance of God is not one of these assumptions, and also that following from these obvious assumptions one cannot prove the existance of God, unlike Science which tries to derive all of its findings from the most basic assumptions.

WintersTwilight wrote:

But I'm no expert on the Big Bang theory or anything... and regardless I think we're getting sidetracked. Even if the theory is true it doesn't discount the existance of God. Perhaps God created this one point.

I agree.

And (I'd just like to point out) that equally if the theory isn't true it doesn't prove the existance of God.

WintersTwilight wrote:I would like to put forward a caution to those who seek truth: do not use a method of seeking that already implies a conclusion. What I mean by this is, "The nature of the field which is under investigation determines the approach and the method or methods which one must use in order to arrive at correct conclusions within that field. A method which is rightly applied to one field may be out of order when applied to another."* Not all reality can be grasped with forceps. If a man had been taught only about steam engines all of his life, and had never seen an electric motor. This man would soon find out that the workings of the electric motor can not be explained by one who leaves electricity out of consideration.


*James D. Bales, How Can Ye Believe, p. 7

Em... as far as I can see that doesn't contradict anything I've said, so I'll agree but I must admit I'm not seeing the relation between the confusion understanding electricity and confusion understanding reality and God, as we're not trying to apply simply one unsuitable method to the problem, but any method which can (logically) illustrate the problem.

To restate my main point because we've gotten horribly sidetracked (well not horribly, it is pretty interesting, anyway):

There is nothing to suggest to me from some basic self evident assumptions and the world around me that God exists, and I have not simply "felt" God's existance either. Which as far as I can see are the only two reasons for believing in something.

To say there is a line between good and evil, implies the existance of good and evil, an assumption.

When I said that there was a line between good and evil, I meant that there is a separation between good and evil. By a separation between good and evil, I meant that good and evil exist.

To me good and evil are merely concepts derived by humans that don't exist in any "ideal" form as there are always related to the materiality from which they are derived. They are material, not in the same sense that a stone is material, but in the way that they only have relevance when affecting material actions, be they the movement of molocules within a brain or the imprisionment of someone for being a sodomite.

I'm not sure that I quite understand exactly what you mean by this. You said that morality has no relevance except when effecting material actions. I'm not sure what you mean by material actions, though. What would be an example of a non-material action?

But what I'm saying is that the existance of God is not one of these assumptions, and also that following from these obvious assumptions one cannot prove the existance of God, unlike Science which tries to derive all of its findings from the most basic assumptions.

I would agree that the existance of God is not self-evident. I believe that what we know about God is very limited, and that that which we know, we know only because He reveals it to us. As to whether or not God's existance can be concluded based on self-evident truths, that is what we are here trying to decide.

You said that science tries to derive all of its findings from the most basic assumptions. I think that it is logic that does this. At this point, we can probably go no further without defining our terms. According to dictionary.com, science is defined as:

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c.Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2.Methodological activity, discipline, or study
3.An activity that appears to require study and method
4.Knowledge, especially that gained through experience
5.Science Christian Science

For the purposes of this discussion, I do not think that the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th definitions will do us much good. The 4th, probably won't do us much good either. According to George Gaylord Simpson (This View of Life, p. 90-91), science is characterized by the following: First, it deals not exclusively with phenomena, but also tries to formulate and verify general relationships and connections in nature. Second, it is concerned only with material relationships, and not with questions about non-material or supernatural. "The observations of science are of material, physically or objectively observable phenomena. Its relationships are material, natural relationships." Third, science continues to test itself "by the same kinds of observations from which it arises and to which it applies."

This rules out science as a field of thought altogether. No one has observed a thought, and it is not a "material, physically or objectively observable phenomena." If you assume that all is matter, and that all relationships are material, and if your methods deal only with matter and its relationships, you would not find anything outside of matter to exist. "If a realm in addition to the material does exist, one could never find it by utilizing methods and instructions which can deal only with the material."* This approach rules out morality, and every relationship between man except physical ones. Science discribes things but cannot evaluate them. It describes what is but can say nothing about what ought to be. I am assuming that we agree that one ought to believe truth. If you ask science if life is worth living, science is silent. That some things ought to be, or that a morality exists is a self-evident truth that I do not think we can get around.

And (I'd just like to point out) that equally if the theory isn't true it doesn't prove the existance of God.

I agree again.

There is nothing to suggest to me from some basic self evident assumptions and the world around me that God exists, and I have not simply "felt" God's existance either. Which as far as I can see are the only two reasons for believing in something.

I think there is a third reason for believing in something. That is faith. (Just thought I'd point that out).

I think that it would be best at this point if you would help me to understand exactly what it is that you believe. This will save much time, and I think that we would probably not get off topic quite as much. Here are some questions that I would like to ask about your belief: Do you believe that the universe is a result of random chance? Do you believe that there are things that ought to be one way or another? Do you believe that there are some things that are not physical? Do you believe that all that exists is matter? Do you believe that everything that can be discovered has been discovered by science already?

I understand that these questions alone will not cover all of what you believe. I think it is very important, however, to examine what it is that we believe. We could sit back all day and find flaws in theories and such, but I think that this only reflects that we are human and do not have all of the answers. It is at this point that we must start dealing with what little understanding we do have. We can only work with what we have to work with, so let us now pin down our beliefs and define our terms.




*James D. Bales, How Can Ye Believe?, p. 9

Sorry for the delay, been busy with exams and CC World Cup http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1661

WintersTwilight wrote:

To say there is a line between good and evil, implies the existance of good and evil, an assumption.

When I said that there was a line between good and evil, I meant that there is a separation between good and evil. By a separation between good and evil, I meant that good and evil exist.

... which was what I was accusing you of assuming.

WintersTwilight wrote:

To me good and evil are merely concepts derived by humans that don't exist in any "ideal" form as there are always related to the materiality from which they are derived. They are material, not in the same sense that a stone is material, but in the way that they only have relevance when affecting material actions, be they the movement of molocules within a brain or the imprisionment of someone for being a sodomite.

I'm not sure that I quite understand exactly what you mean by this. You said that morality has no relevance except when effecting material actions. I'm not sure what you mean by material actions, though. What would be an example of a non-material action?

Hmm... I wasn't really clear there was I? I wasn't suggesting that there are non-material actions, I was merely saying that good and evil don't exist in some ideal form, as they are merely concepts derived from the world around us, and that without us there is no such thing as good and evil. And also that without material action nothing can be classed as good or evil. Essentially I was refuting the Platonic view that objects and ideas exist in an ideal form of which the things on earth partake, and instead forwarding Aristotle's notion that these ideal notions are built from the material world. But I went slightly further to suggest that these "ideal" notions are misleading as they in fact do not exist at all if not applied to some situation, and so remain grounded in the materiality from which they are derived. Or as Althusser said, everything is in the last instance material.

WintersTwilight wrote:

But what I'm saying is that the existance of God is not one of these assumptions, and also that following from these obvious assumptions one cannot prove the existance of God, unlike Science which tries to derive all of its findings from the most basic assumptions.

I would agree that the existance of God is not self-evident. I believe that what we know about God is very limited, and that that which we know, we know only because He reveals it to us. As to whether or not God's existance can be concluded based on self-evident truths, that is what we are here trying to decide.

...ok up to here anyway.

WintersTwilight wrote:You said that science tries to derive all of its findings from the most basic assumptions. I think that it is logic that does this. At this point, we can probably go no further without defining our terms. According to dictionary.com, science is defined as:

1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c.Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2.Methodological activity, discipline, or study
3.An activity that appears to require study and method
4.Knowledge, especially that gained through experience
5.Science Christian Science

For the purposes of this discussion, I do not think that the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th definitions will do us much good. The 4th, probably won't do us much good either. According to George Gaylord Simpson (This View of Life, p. 90-91), science is characterized by the following: First, it deals not exclusively with phenomena, but also tries to formulate and verify general relationships and connections in nature. Second, it is concerned only with material relationships, and not with questions about non-material or supernatural. "The observations of science are of material, physically or objectively observable phenomena. Its relationships are material, natural relationships." Third, science continues to test itself "by the same kinds of observations from which it arises and to which it applies."

This rules out science as a field of thought altogether. No one has observed a thought, and it is not a "material, physically or objectively observable phenomena." If you assume that all is matter, and that all relationships are material, and if your methods deal only with matter and its relationships, you would not find anything outside of matter to exist. "If a realm in addition to the material does exist, one could never find it by utilizing methods and instructions which can deal only with the material."* This approach rules out morality, and every relationship between man except physical ones. Science discribes things but cannot evaluate them. It describes what is but can say nothing about what ought to be. I am assuming that we agree that one ought to believe truth. If you ask science if life is worth living, science is silent. That some things ought to be, or that a morality exists is a self-evident truth that I do not think we can get around.

Hmm... no one has observed a thought in isolation certainly, but we can observe the effects of a thought. We can develop a science of thought based around its effects (Psychanalysis). Anything which has any effect in this reality in the last instance represents itself in materiality. I agree with you that science cannot discuss anything that doesn't in some way represent itself in this world. But... if something doesn't ever represent itself in this world what is the use in knowing of it? It would have no effect on our lives, and there would be absolutly no way of telling if it existed.

I agree with you that Science cannot discuss morality. Science tells us the door is closed. It does not say whether "opening the door" is right or not. Science merely observes. Science can tell us the effect an action is likely to have on humans, but it cannot tell us if this effect is "good" or "bad". That's because these are abstract concepts created by humanity. If you define good and bad, then science can say if somethings good or bad or not. For example if you define good as an action that increases the overall happiness of humanity, then Science, using what it knows about peoples reactions and feelings from psychoanalysis can predict what sort of effect an action will have and judge it accordingly. Science cannot however define good and bad, as these are merely concepts humanity has created, and had different definitions for, for centuries.

Same applies for truth, a truth is just something derived from apparently natural assumptions, as we earlier agreed. If you say truth aught to be believed, then you have to define what "aught" is, is it good for people on a sinking ship to know it's sinking if it'll cause panic and save less lives. Aught implies morality, which you have to define.

Saying something is worth living implies some sort of scale by which to judge things. Science does not assign things worth. To be worth something is an abstract concept derived by humanity, based on their experiences.

What I'm saying is that morality doesn't exist in some ideal state, but is merely a concept derived by humans from their experiences.

WintersTwilight wrote:

There is nothing to suggest to me from some basic self evident assumptions and the world around me that God exists, and I have not simply "felt" God's existance either. Which as far as I can see are the only two reasons for believing in something.

I think there is a third reason for believing in something. That is faith. (Just thought I'd point that out).

What is faith? As far as I can see faith is believing in something for no reason. It's obvious the churches would espouse such a practice as faith. Oh and not doubting them ever, and stuff like that.

WintersTwilight wrote:I think that it would be best at this point if you would help me to understand exactly what it is that you believe. This will save much time, and I think that we would probably not get off topic quite as much. Here are some questions that I would like to ask about your belief: Do you believe that the universe is a result of random chance? Do you believe that there are things that ought to be one way or another? Do you believe that there are some things that are not physical? Do you believe that all that exists is matter? Do you believe that everything that can be discovered has been discovered by science already?

I don't believe anything much. But I will say I think, with higher and lesser degrees of probability.

Do you believe that the universe is a result of random chance? 50/50

Do you believe that there are things that ought to be one way or another? define "aught"

Do you believe that there are some things that are not physical? Do I believe that there are some things that don't in some way represent themselves in the material world? 70% no

Do you believe that all that exists is matter? 50/50

Do you believe that everything that can be discovered has been discovered by science already? 90% no



So anyway let me ask you some questions:
Do you believe in God?
What do you believe about God's nature: Is he onmipotent etc?
Is there any way for us to know God's will?

I think its both 1 and 2

... which was what I was accusing you of assuming.

What I was trying to say, was that I believe that morality is one of the self-evident truths. You could probably argue that morality is not a self-evident truth because it implies that good and evil exist. So, to put it simpler, I believe that the concept of goodness is a self-evident concept.

Hmm... I wasn't really clear there was I? I wasn't suggesting that there are non-material actions, I was merely saying that good and evil don't exist in some ideal form, as they are merely concepts derived from the world around us, and that without us there is no such thing as good and evil. And also that without material action nothing can be classed as good or evil. Essentially I was refuting the Platonic view that objects and ideas exist in an ideal form of which the things on earth partake, and instead forwarding Aristotle's notion that these ideal notions are built from the material world. But I went slightly further to suggest that these "ideal" notions are misleading as they in fact do not exist at all if not applied to some situation, and so remain grounded in the materiality from which they are derived. Or as Althusser said, everything is in the last instance material.

A thought can be good or evil. I do not think that a thought is a material action. It does seem, however, that what you are saying is that everything is material. You did state that you were only fifty percent sure that all that is is matter. It also seems a large assumption to assume that just because good and evil can be applied to physical situations, that if there were no physical situations good and evil would not exist. Now, if humanity created good and evil, then good and evil are only opinions. If they are only opinions, then who is to say that your opinion is right and mine is wrong? It seems that there must be some kind of standard. You may agrue that this standard is the majority of humanity. I do not think this can be, however, because the majority of humanity does not always agree. Even when wars are fought, sometimes we side with the smaller side simply because they are good, and the larger side evil. If good and evil are opinions, there does not seem any reason for one to force their opinion on anyone else. But to state something like that is to assume that it is wrong to force your opinions. It seems to me that good and evil must have a standard. I would argue that this standard is the divine being.

If all is in the end physical, then it would seem that our thoughts would become meaningless. We would be mindless. Our brains would work based on physical preasures inside and outside of our heads. It appears that our thoughts would not be rational, but only the way that the matter in our head happened to move. This seems to also eliminate free will. It would not be we who were thinking irrationally. We would be controlled simply by matter. I believe that this argument, that all is matter, argues against itself in that it destroys logic when the conlcusion is reached. I do not see how an argument can be logical if it discredits logic in the process. It appears to me that it destroys its own foundation.

Hmm... no one has observed a thought in isolation certainly, but we can observe the effects of a thought. We can develop a science of thought based around its effects (Psychanalysis). Anything which has any effect in this reality in the last instance represents itself in materiality. I agree with you that science cannot discuss anything that doesn't in some way represent itself in this world. But... if something doesn't ever represent itself in this world what is the use in knowing of it? It would have no effect on our lives, and there would be absolutly no way of telling if it existed.

I agree with you that we can observe the effects of thoughts at times. I would like to point out that psychoanalysis is not science in the sense that we defined it. It may be a science, but this is using a different definition of the word. Again, I do not think that everything is material. I also think that if a God created everything and then let His creation go on its own, then He would not necessarily be representing himself in the physical world (except through the very fact of His creating the physical world). It would seem that His actions still would have a very large impact on our lives because we would not have even had a life if He did not create the physical world. I do not believe that God did such a thing, but it would be an example of how we would be effected by a force that we did not know and that did not represent itself in the physical world.

Same applies for truth, a truth is just something derived from apparently natural assumptions, as we earlier agreed. If you say truth aught to be believed, then you have to define what "aught" is, is it good for people on a sinking ship to know it's sinking if it'll cause panic and save less lives. Aught implies morality, which you have to define.

I believe that what ought to be done is ingrained in most if not all humans. I believe that it is the human conscience, and it must have a standard. According to dictionary.com, ought is defined mainly as an indication of obligation or duty. This definition does not indicate any particular situation. It seems that it must have some kind of standard.

What is faith? As far as I can see faith is believing in something for no reason. It's obvious the churches would espouse such a practice as faith. Oh and not doubting them ever, and stuff like that.

According to dictionary.com, the word "faith" can be defined as the following:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance.
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I do not think that we are using faith in the last two senses. Even in the second sense, it does not imply belief for no reason. If a man is inexperianced at climbing a mountain, and is hanging from a ledge, no one accuses him of not being logical when he releases his only hold on the ledge to grab the hand of a guide. The guide had given him no prior reason to trust him, yet we do not accuse this man of being unintellectual simply because he put his faith in the guide. In fact, we often commend him for his trust.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." -Hebrews 11:1

Do you believe that the universe is a result of random chance? 50/50

I am very interested to know why you chose the probability "50/50". Why not some other proportion?

Do you believe that there are things that ought to be one way or another? define "aught"

Can you define it?

Do you believe that all that exists is matter? 50/50

Again, I would like to know how you came to this probability. Based on the other things you have said, it seems that you think it is more likely that all there is is matter.

Do you believe in God?

Yes.

What do you believe about God's nature: Is he onmipotent etc?

There are many things that I believe about God's nature. I could be wrong on some of these. Based on your example, I do not think this is exactly what you meant. Based on your example, i will say I believe that He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and good.

Is there any way for us to know God's will?

Yes, I believe there is. I believe that God reveals some things to us, otherwise we would not know enough about Him to be having this conversation.

Wow.... Now this is a debate.

I'm not gonna say a word, i'll just watch.

WintersTwilight wrote:

... which was what I was accusing you of assuming.

What I was trying to say, was that I believe that morality is one of the self-evident truths. You could probably argue that morality is not a self-evident truth because it implies that good and evil exist. So, to put it simpler, I believe that the concept of goodness is a self-evident concept.

...which I disagree with.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Hmm... I wasn't really clear there was I? I wasn't suggesting that there are non-material actions, I was merely saying that good and evil don't exist in some ideal form, as they are merely concepts derived from the world around us, and that without us there is no such thing as good and evil. And also that without material action nothing can be classed as good or evil. Essentially I was refuting the Platonic view that objects and ideas exist in an ideal form of which the things on earth partake, and instead forwarding Aristotle's notion that these ideal notions are built from the material world. But I went slightly further to suggest that these "ideal" notions are misleading as they in fact do not exist at all if not applied to some situation, and so remain grounded in the materiality from which they are derived. Or as Althusser said, everything is in the last instance material.

A thought can be good or evil. I do not think that a thought is a material action. It does seem, however, that what you are saying is that everything is material. You did state that you were only fifty percent sure that all that is is matter. It also seems a large assumption to assume that just because good and evil can be applied to physical situations, that if there were no physical situations good and evil would not exist.

A thought can be "good" or "evil" by certain definitions certainly, but I still hold that these definitions are derived from our interpretation of the World. When I said that without material action nothing can be classed as good or evil I did not in fact mean that only material things can be classed as good or evil, but rather that our concepts of morality are derived from material actions and it is these actions that lay the definitions for other things, like thoughts. If we had no material experience of the World, no sense of some action then certainly good and evil would for us cease to exist. Had we retained our previous experience, and all material/physical sense of the world dissappeared, then yes we could judge things as based on our previous material experience, but the fact remains that our concepts of good and evil have been derived from these experiences. And also I'm saying that thoughts only become good or evil in relation to experience, there is no good or evil that does not relate to some experience.

On a side note, I'm reluctant to concede that a thought is not material, but meh, it's irrelevant for now, and if I start arguing we'll go way off topic again.

WintersTwilight wrote:Now, if humanity created good and evil, then good and evil are only opinions. If they are only opinions, then who is to say that your opinion is right and mine is wrong? It seems that there must be some kind of standard. You may agrue that this standard is the majority of humanity. I do not think this can be, however, because the majority of humanity does not always agree. Even when wars are fought, sometimes we side with the smaller side simply because they are good, and the larger side evil. If good and evil are opinions, there does not seem any reason for one to force their opinion on anyone else. But to state something like that is to assume that it is wrong to force your opinions. It seems to me that good and evil must have a standard. I would argue that this standard is the divine being.

This argument I've heard before. If humanity disagrees how can there be some standard, what makes you right and me wrong. You're saying that there's this standard that is this divine being, but why doesn't this standard exist in everyone. I'm not saying that the standard is the majority of humanity, because the majority of humanity are rarely the brightest of sparks in these sorts of debates. I will say that we hold a common reasoning process, and that given some definition of morality and a clear illustration of all possible arguments most will arrive at the same conclusion of what is moral and what isn't. However people aren't given this common definition are they, their concepts of morality, are generally built on bits and pieces throughout their lives, lecturing from their parents, religious leaders, times they were hurt etc. Morality is derived based on personal experience.

I would make one note, that we should all avoid use the binaries of good and evil in relation to war, as this is one of the most dangerous things to do, to invest something the destructive with "good"-that overriding thing that makes it more important than anything else. The power of the concepts of "good" and "evil" is scary at times, perhaps this power is the reason for their continued endurance.

WintersTwilight wrote:If all is in the end physical, then it would seem that our thoughts would become meaningless. We would be mindless. Our brains would work based on physical preasures inside and outside of our heads. It appears that our thoughts would not be rational, but only the way that the matter in our head happened to move. This seems to also eliminate free will. It would not be we who were thinking irrationally. We would be controlled simply by matter. I believe that this argument, that all is matter, argues against itself in that it destroys logic when the conlcusion is reached. I do not see how an argument can be logical if it discredits logic in the process. It appears to me that it destroys its own foundation.

Because all is physical does not render us mindless. I believe we have the rational power to decide our own actions, but just because of this doesn't mean we have free will. This rationality does not imply that we are free from all external/internal pressures on our minds. We should seek to make more of our actions based on this rationality, rather than mere impulsive reactions, as this rational part of our nature has more carefully considered all that is around it. Arguing that we are controlled by external and internal motives does not discount logic, as I tried to convey earlier when you brought up the Holdane (name?) quote about the brain.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Hmm... no one has observed a thought in isolation certainly, but we can observe the effects of a thought. We can develop a science of thought based around its effects (Psychanalysis). Anything which has any effect in this reality in the last instance represents itself in materiality. I agree with you that science cannot discuss anything that doesn't in some way represent itself in this world. But... if something doesn't ever represent itself in this world what is the use in knowing of it? It would have no effect on our lives, and there would be absolutly no way of telling if it existed.

I agree with you that we can observe the effects of thoughts at times. I would like to point out that psychoanalysis is not science in the sense that we defined it. It may be a science, but this is using a different definition of the word. Again, I do not think that everything is material. I also think that if a God created everything and then let His creation go on its own, then He would not necessarily be representing himself in the physical world (except through the very fact of His creating the physical world). It would seem that His actions still would have a very large impact on our lives because we would not have even had a life if He did not create the physical world. I do not believe that God did such a thing, but it would be an example of how we would be effected by a force that we did not know and that did not represent itself in the physical world.

Firstly I'd like to say that psychanalysis is a science by our definition:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Secondly that is an example of a force that we would not know about, but what difference does it make. I could say that invisible pink unicorns come out and shat the world into existance, wouldn't make it any more true. To support theories that we have no reason or evidence to believe is illogical.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Same applies for truth, a truth is just something derived from apparently natural assumptions, as we earlier agreed. If you say truth aught to be believed, then you have to define what "aught" is, is it good for people on a sinking ship to know it's sinking if it'll cause panic and save less lives. Aught implies morality, which you have to define.

I believe that what ought to be done is ingrained in most if not all humans. I believe that it is the human conscience, and it must have a standard. According to dictionary.com, ought is defined mainly as an indication of obligation or duty. This definition does not indicate any particular situation. It seems that it must have some kind of standard.

Some kind of standard which I'm saying we derived from experience.

WintersTwilight wrote:

What is faith? As far as I can see faith is believing in something for no reason. It's obvious the churches would espouse such a practice as faith. Oh and not doubting them ever, and stuff like that.

According to dictionary.com, the word "faith" can be defined as the following:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance.
4. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I do not think that we are using faith in the last two senses. Even in the second sense, it does not imply belief for no reason. If a man is inexperianced at climbing a mountain, and is hanging from a ledge, no one accuses him of not being logical when he releases his only hold on the ledge to grab the hand of a guide. The guide had given him no prior reason to trust him, yet we do not accuse this man of being unintellectual simply because he put his faith in the guide. In fact, we often commend him for his trust.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." -Hebrews 11:1

In the case of the man and the guide his faith is based on something, his previous experience with humanity, his knowledge of the typical actions of humans, and the typical nature of humans invested with positions of authority. In this case there is a reason. Faith is belief certainly, but I've already asked what reason is there to believe in something except by logical conclusions or material experience (which I called feeling). Then you're telling me faith, which I say is a belief for no reason and then by the definition we get back to belief without logical conclusions or material experiences. Faith is the reason to believe in something without those reasons, which is a belief in something without those reasons. I've still seen no reason. All I've seen is how faith implies faith.[/quote]

WintersTwilight wrote:

Do you believe that the universe is a result of random chance? 50/50

I am very interested to know why you chose the probability "50/50". Why not some other proportion?

Because I honestly don't really know.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Do you believe that there are things that ought to be one way or another? define "aught"

Can you define it?

No, language is a tangled web and that's one of those words that just seems to point to other signifiers that point eventually back to it.

If I had to I'd say something like: how you think something should be.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Do you believe that all that exists is matter? 50/50

Again, I would like to know how you came to this probability. Based on the other things you have said, it seems that you think it is more likely that all there is is matter.

I don't know much about the nature of the universe, so I can't really speculate. Are rays and such considered as matter, what about the strings in string theory? What about the gaps between the particles in an atom? My lack of knowledge prompts an even score.

WintersTwilight wrote:

What do you believe about God's nature: Is he onmipotent etc?

There are many things that I believe about God's nature. I could be wrong on some of these. Based on your example, I do not think this is exactly what you meant. Based on your example, i will say I believe that He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and good.

So is God good by definition or is there good outside God, of which God partakes?

You've probably heard this before but I'm quite a fan so I'm going to throw it at you again:

"If God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, there is something he cannot do;
and if He cannot create a stone too heavy for him to lift, there is something He cannot create.
If there's something God cannot do He is not omnipotent, and if there's something He cannot create.
He is not omnipotent. Therefore God is not omnipotent."
- Elementary Symbolic Logic, 2nd Ed. Gustason & Ulrich.

WintersTwilight wrote:

Is there any way for us to know God's will?

Yes, I believe there is. I believe that God reveals some things to us, otherwise we would not know enough about Him to be having this conversation.

Now this is really interesting. How does God reveal things to us?

A thought can be "good" or "evil" by certain definitions certainly, but I still hold that these definitions are derived from our interpretation of the World. When I said that without material action nothing can be classed as good or evil I did not in fact mean that only material things can be classed as good or evil, but rather that our concepts of morality are derived from material actions and it is these actions that lay the definitions for other things, like thoughts. If we had no material experience of the World, no sense of some action then certainly good and evil would for us cease to exist. Had we retained our previous experience, and all material/physical sense of the world dissappeared, then yes we could judge things as based on our previous material experience, but the fact remains that our concepts of good and evil have been derived from these experiences. And also I'm saying that thoughts only become good or evil in relation to experience, there is no good or evil that does not relate to some experience.

Once again, I do not believe that just because a standard is applied to something, that standard cannot exist without the thing which it is applied to. When you look at sheet music, the sheet music tells you which keys on the piano to play. The sheet music is not any note on the piano, but something seperate from them. For one that has never seen a piano, the notes on the sheet may have no meaning, but they still exist. In the same way, I believe that right and wrong exist whether we do or not.

This argument I've heard before. If humanity disagrees how can there be some standard, what makes you right and me wrong. You're saying that there's this standard that is this divine being, but why doesn't this standard exist in everyone. I'm not saying that the standard is the majority of humanity, because the majority of humanity are rarely the brightest of sparks in these sorts of debates. I will say that we hold a common reasoning process, and that given some definition of morality and a clear illustration of all possible arguments most will arrive at the same conclusion of what is moral and what isn't. However people aren't given this common definition are they, their concepts of morality, are generally built on bits and pieces throughout their lives, lecturing from their parents, religious leaders, times they were hurt etc. Morality is derived based on personal experience.

Here is something to look for next time you hear two people quarreling. You can probably notice that one of them is saying things like "I was there first", "Give me some of your food, I gave you some of mine", "But you promised". These people are appealing to some standard that they assume both of them share. If they did not share this standard, then they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word but would fight like animals. You may also notice that the second person will say things like, "Things were quite different when you gave me some of yours" or "I would never have promised if I would have known". They usually make excuses to excuse themselves from this law, or try to come up with some exception. This standard or moral law or whatever you want to call it is burried very deep within humanity. All kinds of people experiance this law.

I do not think that just because parents and teachers teach children some of this moral law, that it was created by humans. Parents and teachers teach children the multiplication tables as well, but this does not mean that they could have been different than they are. A child that grows up on a desert island, probably will not know the multiplication tables, but the multiplication tables will still be the same.

The thing about this moral law that is different than say, the law of gravitation, is that we can choose to obey it or to disobey it. This moral law is so deeply ingrained in us, that rather than admitting to breaking it, we usually make excuses. Human beings all over the world have this idea that they ought to behave a certain way, and yet they do not behave in this way. We know the law and we break it.

Because all is physical does not render us mindless. I believe we have the rational power to decide our own actions, but just because of this doesn't mean we have free will. This rationality does not imply that we are free from all external/internal pressures on our minds. We should seek to make more of our actions based on this rationality, rather than mere impulsive reactions, as this rational part of our nature has more carefully considered all that is around it. Arguing that we are controlled by external and internal motives does not discount logic, as I tried to convey earlier when you brought up the Holdane (name?) quote about the brain.

I have no doubt that physical forces effect our brains and in turn our thoughts to some extent. I do not, however, see how we can have the power to decide our own actions, and at the same time not have free will? I do not think that the brain is the totality of the mind. At this point we may need to define the words brain and mind. The definition I am using for mind here is: The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. The definition for brain I am using is: The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white matter. It is the primary center for the regulation and control of bodily activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting information to the muscles and body organs.

In the case of the man and the guide his faith is based on something, his previous experience with humanity, his knowledge of the typical actions of humans, and the typical nature of humans invested with positions of authority. In this case there is a reason. Faith is belief certainly, but I've already asked what reason is there to believe in something except by logical conclusions or material experience (which I called feeling). Then you're telling me faith, which I say is a belief for no reason and then by the definition we get back to belief without logical conclusions or material experiences. Faith is the reason to believe in something without those reasons, which is a belief in something without those reasons. I've still seen no reason. All I've seen is how faith implies faith.

Well said, I see the loop. Let me try to make a clearer definition. Faith can be a belief based on authority. The authority of course must be based on something as well, but the belief can be based on authority. The man on the mountain's faith in the guide is based on the authority of the guide, you may categorize this into one of your other categories of belief. In this case, I guess you could probably categorize all beliefs into others until you had only two categories. I do think, however, that we may be getting a bit off topic on this one.

Because I honestly don't really know.

I am not sure if you believe that the existance of God can be proven or not, but I thought it might be helpful to point out that just because you do not know, does not mean that no one knows.

So is God good by definition or is there good outside God, of which God partakes?

I believe that God is good by definition, and that all good comes from Him.

You've probably heard this before but I'm quite a fan so I'm going to throw it at you again:

"If God can create a stone too heavy for Him to lift, there is something he cannot do;
and if He cannot create a stone too heavy for him to lift, there is something He cannot create.
If there's something God cannot do He is not omnipotent, and if there's something He cannot create.
He is not omnipotent. Therefore God is not omnipotent."
- Elementary Symbolic Logic, 2nd Ed. Gustason & Ulrich.

Yes, I have encountered this argument and its various forms many times. I do not think that those who use this argument understand what we mean by omnipotence. Omnipotence is usually defined as the ability to do all or anything. When we use the word impossible, we are usually implying a supressed clause beginning with the word "unless". Such that it is impossible for me to climb my stairs with a broken leg, unless I have some help from my friends. Some impossbility statements, however, do not have this supressed clause but carry the impossiblity within themselves. These intrinsical impossiblities are impossible for everyone and everything, and are even impossible for omnipotence. If you said that God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from the creature, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God. (Another example would be that God cannot both exist and not exist.) Once again, omnipotence is the ability to do all or anything, but intrinsically impossible events are not things but nonentities. You cannot give meaning to meaningless combinations of words simply by prefixing them with the two other words "God can". This is not because God's power meets an obstical but because, (in the words of C.S. Lewis) "...nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

Now this is really interesting. How does God reveal things to us?

As a Christian, I believe that He does so through the Bible. Which I believe is His inspired word.

One thing that I would like to point out is that those who do not believe in a God, do not have much authority when arguing about God's nature or who God is, because they do not even believe that He exists. Arguments such as the one about the omnipotence of God should probably be reserved for theists. It does not seem to be the place for atheists and agnostics to debate about the nature of God when they do not believe in God's existance.

my question is why is god invovled in almost every single fourm in the freakin world... i cant go into any fourms that have a area for off topic converstaions without seeing something about god in a discussion....

p.s. have fun johnnyrotton this is mostly punctuation mistakes if you really wanna start correcting things hehe

jay_a2j wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:I think hell is like earth under the republicans. Because how it was explained ot me in sunday school is taht jesus wanted people to choose right or wrong(free agency) and satan wanted everyone to be forced to do right. So wouldnt satan force you to do right in hell?

What sunday school did you attend???? WOW! And your left wing bias doesn't help much either! lol

Satan wants to "force people to do right"??? You have got to be kidding. Satan opposes all that is right and just. Jesus wants you to "do right" but allows for free will.

God wants your love but ONLY if you give it freely. What good is love if it is forced? Could you imagine if a child loved their parent ONLY because the parent told them to? Thats not love.

Well, i grew up mormon, but now i see that that is bullshit.

Satan does oppose all that is right and just and tempts you to be bad for the main reason of because he is trying to show god that we need them to force us to do which is right instead of having free agency. I thought that was a general consensus among religions. Satan also opposes that which is right and just because forcing people to do that which you think is right without regard to their choice is wrong. That is what Satan wanted.

no such thing as hell!

alex_white101 wrote:no such thing as hell!

If you were a Chicago Cubs fan you would know that it does exist between the months of March - October of every year.

what's with people and reviving summer 2006 threads

Hell is a really cool place where dirty hoes are walking around with no clothes eating red meat while songs by Iron Maiden are being played in the background

luns101 wrote:

alex_white101 wrote:no such thing as hell!

If you were a Chicago Cubs fan you would know that it does exist between the months of March - October of every year.

HAhaha that's actually really funny