Off-topic

[rustediron]

Theory of Movement: Everything known in nature is entirely incapable of setting itself into motion. For all movement, there is a mover, and this mover was brought into motion by something already moving, itself. For you to move your arm, your brain must send a signal, and the brain operates with blood from the heart, which beats only because life was biologically granted to you by a set of parents. Those parents, too, were set into motion by their own, and the chain goes on, as it does for all things. Plants, animals, even the weather... nothing naturally occurring can move its own being without first being moved by another.

Logic would dictate that there cannot be an infinite series of movers, as it is known that there was a begining of time. Therefore, there must have been a first mover, and no such being naturally occurrs in nature. It would have to be a creature existing of its own necessity, outside of space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

Theory of Cause: Nothing can simply cause itself to exist. I think that is pretty simple, in itself. Plants, animals, elements... none can simply will themselves into being, for to do that would imply that they already had a will, and were thus already existing. That makes no sense. Therefore, there must have been a first causer at some point, whether it is still around or not. This causer though, could not have been caused by another, as there cannot be an infinite series of causers, just as there cannot be an infinite series of movers. The first causer, also like the first mover, must have existed beyond space and time. This, we call "God" for lack of a better term.

I've never really liked these two arguments. You have said yourself, that there is a beginning of time. This is when the universe began, there being no time previous to the universe, as time is merely a dimension of the universe.

Nothing can cause itself - yes, I agree with this. But cause and effect requires one more, fundamental condition: the cause must occur before the effect. As there is nothing 'before' the universe, there being an absence of time in this state, a paradox is created.

This leads to the conclusion that cause and effect did not apply itself until after the creation of the universe, and therefore the first cause is the creation of the universe.

As logic is based on the fundamental principles of cause and effect, if cause and effect does not apply to the universe, I feel it is reasonable to say that we cannot fathom the creation of the universe through logic.

Saying something outside our universe has to exist in order for our universe to exist in a rather inconsistent logical step. To extend this logic, something *had* to create this "God" in order for us to be created by it, and something had to create that god etc.

When explaining things, it is generally accepted when there is a time when a sufficient explanation has been made. An easy way to represent this is the analogy of a child and his parent. The child, ever-curious as is his nature to be, continuosly asks "Why?" to his parent. The parent, after answering the child's question, eventually comes to a point when he believes he has answered the child's questions sufficiently.

This can be applied to all explanations; in cosmological arguments, it is generally accepted that, once we reach God, it is a sufficient explanation, and questions on 'Who created God?' and 'Who created the thing that created God, then?', are meaningless.

Intelligence Theory: There are countless things in this world that lack intelligence. They exist without any cognitive functions, or the ability to produce thought. Many of these things, however, act to an end.

I'm not that familiar with this argument, and it would be helpful if you provided an example.

Conclusively, wouldn't you rather live your life believing in God to find out that he doesn't exist, rather than to live your life not believing, to find out that he does?

The fun thing about faith though, is that you have nothing to lose no matter what you do with it. You might as well invest in something big, since its risk-free.

Here, I quote Douglas Adams

People will then often say ?But surely it?s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?? This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I?ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

I guess thats what I'm also trying to say, we as humans think very highly of ourselves and try to force our 'rules' on the universe. When instead we should be looking and searching for the rules we should adhere to, not vice versa.

This is one of the reasons I dislike religion; many religions place humans 'above' everything else. Take christianity for an example - what logical step is taken to state that God has a human personality, capable of distinguishing good and evil with a moral compass similar, albeit enhanced, to a human's?

the way I see it, we have tried to use science to disprove an idea such as god before, and put everything into an I can see it therefor it's only this way 'box'.

Am I right in saying, then, you and Gairun are Kiergaardian religious existentialists? Kierkegaard believed that, in order to find true faith, one must doubt the objective truths he is given; if there is no doubt, one is simply forced to believe, which undermines faith. When you begin to doubt, that is when you truly begin to believe in God; he described this step as the 'leap of faith'.

and look for and find a god objectively and rationally. I find a way to conclude he exists.

I believe you are missing the point here. Religious arguments exist to show us that it is more rational than not to believe in God. If one proves that God, does, in fact exist, beyond all reasonable doubt, one runs into this over-used Douglas Adams quote:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

I had salmon sashimi today!

[Gairun]

This is one of the reasons I dislike religion; many religions place humans 'above' everything else. Take christianity for an example - what logical step is taken to state that God has a human personality, capable of distinguishing good and evil with a moral compass similar, albeit enhanced, to a human's?

[/color][/size][/font]
I had salmon sashimi today!

Two quick points here Rusted, first off I would say Christianity points out the fact that humans are not placed above everything else. They are the 'created', where God is the 'creator', however they do enjoy a special relationship with God due to this.


And secondly the step taken to show God through a human prism (with a moral compass based on a human being) was Jesus Christ. That was one of the points of his existance, he was fully human yet was able to be obedient out of love for God, while at the same time being a part of God, thus Divine.

Thats the funny thing, when we say something is a paradox God justs laughs at us and may say "It's not a paradox from where I'm standing".

And thats my point, we're trying to drag God down to our level and figure him out with our abilities. When instead we should be trying to find ways to drag ourselves up to his understanding.

I love tacos.

[rustediron]

If we look at the definition of omnipotence, most people would agree that, in the case of god, it is, "the ability to do anything and everything, bar that which goes against His fundamental nature and logic."

This is generally accepted, as if this is not the case, religious talk becomes meaningless.

Also, this is my point: why did God send us Jesus Christ, in the guise of a human? Are humans really that special?

[Aries1918]

Yes, we are special. At least my mother always told me I was "special"

[Saulus]

I'm going to need to ask everyone to refrain from ideological debates about religion, there is a time and a place for it, and it's not on this forum.

[Aries1918]

Yeah, instead lets talk politics. Not really though, because that is just as bad.

Lets talk about belly-button lint. That's always interesting.

[rustediron]

: o But we were having so much fun!

[Mighty_Draco]

I'm going to need to ask everyone to refrain from ideological debates about religion, there is a time and a place for it, and it's not on this forum.

you're no fun

[Jaeram]

Aww... man.. we were having so much fun too, and it's one of the few religious and ideological discussions I've ever been able to have where the two sides weren't vying to gouge each others throats out after 5 minutes of debate. Saulus made me sad. We could talk politics, but since this is a server with people from many different countries it'll probably end up with people saying "Bush is a terrible president" and the U.S. people sighing and saying "Yeah we know..."

(I am a citizen of the U.S. that comment is an extension of my personal attitude towards the subject, and it was only meant to be a joke, if there are any Bush supporters out there please don't flame me or take offense to it, it's just a joke and I in no means have any desire to start a political discussion here because I think those could get out of hand a lot easier than the god discussion, may it rest in peace for Saulus hath brung down the mighty DM hammer upon it).

[Kangleton]

Damnit! I should have taken the time to say all of my abundantly clever things in the morning when I had the chance! I come back, and what has happened? I am told I shall never be able to enlighten the world? Pfeh. Thanks Saulus. You just cost everyone their ticket to heaven.


...I joke, of course.

But one thing I must ask, before I forget to ever ask again, anywhere.

Also, this is my point: why did God send us Jesus Christ, in the guise of a human? Are humans really that special?

Should he have sent a fish instead?

[Peridan]

He did, in the form of dolphins. And one day they will all leave Earth in an attempt to avoid the oncoming destruction of the planet to make way for an interstellar bypass.


P.S. You really SHOULD look at those plans. They've been posted for months

[Jaeram]

Although I do not wish to start up the religious part again, the reason I believe Jesus Christ was sent as a human was because if god wished to relay his message subtly to the humans, then by sending a familiar looking being (i.e. another human who could be warmly welcomed) he could enlighten the people with his message without fear of persecution based on physical appearance. Had he sent an ogre or a talking cat, people would probably call it some kind of demon and try to destroy it (look at frankensteins monster) instead of listening to it.

[Gairun]

Saulus took our fun away! *cries*

Seriously that was the best, most enjoyable, respectable, and mature internet discussion I have ever had.

I bed thee farewell. . . civility.

[Aries1918]

people would probably call it some kind of demon and try to destroy it (look at frankensteins monster) instead of listening to it.

What's wrong with Frankenstein's monster? He seemed alright in the movie Young Frankenstein. I love that movie..... *makes a character on Sundren named Abby Normal*

[Kangleton]

Theres nothing off-topic to talk about without religion and politics. Its going to go back to blurting out random food items. Food items that I am morally opposed to!

I have no place here. Bite me.