REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
The most important thing, IMO, is to believe God exists.

Why?

Then, no matter what, She does.

What? Could you explain this, please? Or do you just mean God exists in your mind, as opposed to being an actual being in reality?

[Nurvingiel]

These two points are interconnected, and they're part of a really complex part of my worldview.

This is the gist of it:

The Universe is infinite, therefore, there are infinite possibilities within it. Even to the point where there are multiple dimensions. (I don't think dimenions are infinite because some would get redundant.)

When any life form anywhere has a thought, that guarantees the thoughts existence somewhere by either[list]
1. the thought already existed somewhere else in the Universe, and found it's way to that life form's consciousness
2. the thought does not exists anywhere in the Universe yet, and by thinking it, the life form made it exist in an alternate dimension
3. (the one that happens nearly all the time) the life form was thinking about something in its world, so it already exists in its dimension. (ie. The life form thinks about food that is already in front of it).

The Creator made the infinite Universe, and gave some of the lifeforms sentience. Sentience is not only the ability to think, but also reason, and make moral decisions. These beings can observe things which lead them to know of the Creator's existence. But many believe in the Creator differently, so all those manifestations exist in different dimensions.
Since I don't know how people who don't believe in the Creator think about the origins of the Universe, I don't know how to factor that into my world view. But I will look into that more.
Therefore, if a life form believes in the Creator, then She will exist in one (or more) of the dimensions as that lifeform pictures Her. That is also why it is the most important thing to believe God exists as well. Every believing life form makes even more manifestations of Her throughout the Universe.

You asked.

[Fat middle]

Interesting theory, but it depends of the way you think that thought works and of your concept of infinite.

How do you explain that we can think on two contradictory terms?

[Janny]

There is a distinct lack of scientific understanding of consciousness/sentience, which leaves this arguement open. Again, if I'm wrong, please, please, please correct me because it would be the most fascinating this to me.

Also, I'm not sure I care what pronoun you use, nor if I know what 'honking off' is.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
These two points are interconnected, and they're part of a really complex part of my worldview.

This is the gist of it:

The Universe is infinite, therefore, there are infinite possibilities within it. Even to the point where there are multiple dimensions. (I don't think dimenions are infinite because some would get redundant.)

When any life form anywhere has a thought, that guarantees the thoughts existence somewhere by either[list]
1. the thought already existed somewhere else in the Universe, and found it's way to that life form's consciousness
2. the thought does not exists anywhere in the Universe yet, and by thinking it, the life form made it exist in an alternate dimension
3. (the one that happens nearly all the time) the life form was thinking about something in its world, so it already exists in its dimension. (ie. The life form thinks about food that is already in front of it).

The Creator made the infinite Universe, and gave some of the lifeforms sentience. Sentience is not only the ability to think, but also reason, and make moral decisions. These beings can observe things which lead them to know of the Creator's existence. But many believe in the Creator differently, so all those manifestations exist in different dimensions.
Since I don't know how people who don't believe in the Creator think about the origins of the Universe, I don't know how to factor that into my world view. But I will look into that more.
Therefore, if a life form believes in the Creator, then She will exist in one (or more) of the dimensions as that lifeform pictures Her. That is also why it is the most important thing to believe God exists as well. Every believing life form makes even more manifestations of Her throughout the Universe.

You asked.

Nurv,

The notion of multiple dimensions is quite abstract. I can see viewing this in a speculative sense, but it's hard to imagine 'buying it' in a sense of making it foundational to one's beliefs. There is just no evidence to support it (though it has made for some great SF stories). It runs counter to scientific thought - about two bodies occupying the same space and conservation of matter & energy. How all the other dimensions could 'hide' from this one, and vice-versa... just doesn't have a clear answer. (ED: However, I do admit that I have no problem with an unseen 'spirit world' which could occupy the same space... so perhaps this is inconsistent on my part, or I should come up with a better way to address your very many dimensions. )

Also - not sure what you mean about the existence of a thought once any life form has had it. I would tend to say only that it at least existed as a thought at one time. If you mean the thought remains 'out there somewhere' - for instance, even after the life form died - that sounds sort of nebulous... and I just don't see any way that this could be 'guaranteed'. If you mean that the thought has become reality - that to me is a bigger leap, because it ascribes a quality I would give only to a Creator (thinking something into being) to part of the Creation. In my own case, I can think about all kinds of things... but unless I get off my rear end and DO some of them, they'll never happen. I'll probably never manage to get done with all the things I could think of (maybe I COULD do a good chunk if I lived another 50 years in good health and stopped thinking entirely - (ED: AND stopped changing my mind... AND stopped procrastinating!) - to just wrap up all the projects I've already thought of). I just don't have that 'mind over matter' ability, as convenient as it would be. That makes it hard for me to project it upon all living creatures.

Then it's yet ANOTHER leap to say that I, as creation, could shape my own Creator by my thoughts. (ED: and I don't see much value in a Creator like that... what did they really CREATE?) Again - this strikes me as pure speculation. How long have you been thinking all this through?

Just a couple ... thoughts.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
When I first met my husband, I liked him right off - lovely dark hair, tall, very courteous and very masculine. We met at a Bible study - then didn't see each other for several months! (we were both going on business trips a lot). I next saw him at the 4th of July party - our group went 4-wheeling on some property the church owned and was going to build on. I thought that perhaps he liked me, too. Did I run to the store and purchase some scales and scientifically measure his heart to try to answer my question? No. The question is not scientifically answerable.

But it IS a suitable question to make inferences from, which I did at the end of the 4-wheeling time. Everyone was headed over to someone's house for food and swimming, and he needed a ride (the people he came with had to go early). Some girls kept telling him "Come with us! Come with us" (I wanted to kick them! ) But I assumed that IF he liked me, then he would choose to go with ME to the party, so I smiled at him and said "I have room in my car, you can come with me if you'd like to!" and started walking to my car. When I got there - there he was and the rest, as they say, is history! (Of course the case could have been that he liked me and was too shy to take up that hint, but if he was that kind of guy, I didn't WANT to go out with him. I gave him PLENTY of encouragement - quite a nice smile! - and if he wasn't decisive enough to follow up on it, then he wasn't the kind of guy I like, anyway.)

Rian - I guess I'm pulling this into an OT tangent (maybe we need a 'How I Met My Significant Other' thread... hmmm, the stories could get quite lively though! ), but I really LIKED that story about how you and your husband got together.

Guys, take note: If you're going to an activity and suspect there will be unattached females around, don't drive yourself, and make sure your ride leaves you... and get a good idea of just WHOM you want to catch a ride with!

(Oh - and PS, Rian... GOOD THING those other girls were around... gave him a clear choice and forced him to make a decision! If you were his only option for a ride, it wouldn't have meant near as much... you should THANK them! (and take off those pointed, steel-toed boots! ))

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Since I don't know how people who don't believe in the Creator think about the origins of the Universe, I don't know how to factor that into my world view. But I will look into that more.

that sounds like me

i'm actually not even too keen on the big bang thing... stephen hawking had an interesting theory on a somewhat cyclical universe (though even he claimed it was more of a exercise in theory then something he really believed)

my belief is that there is no beginning or end... and that theories like the big bang or creationism are just reflections of mankind's inability to grasp the infinite

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
(Oh - and PS, Rian... GOOD THING those other girls were around... gave him a clear choice and forced him to make a decision! If you were his only option for a ride, it wouldn't have meant near as much... you should THANK them! (and take off those pointed, steel-toed boots! ))

That's true, I never thought of that! *changes her shoes*

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
There is just no evidence to support it (though it has made for some great SF stories). It runs counter to scientific thought - about two bodies occupying the same space and conservation of matter & energy. How all the other dimensions could 'hide' from this one, and vice-versa... just doesn't have a clear answer.

Originally posted by Valandil
Then it's yet ANOTHER leap to say that I, as creation, could shape my own Creator by my thoughts. (ED: and I don't see much value in a Creator like that... what did they really CREATE?)

Originally posted by Fat Middle
How do you explain that we can think on two contradictory terms?

These are good points IMO, Nurvi - what do you think about them?

(ED: However, I do admit that I have no problem with an unseen 'spirit world' which could occupy the same space... so perhaps this is inconsistent on my part, or I should come up with a better way to address your very many dimensions. )

But there's not a contradiction here, as there is (IMO) with the alternate dimensions thing - it's just that there exists an unseen aspect of this one actual reality.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But there's not a contradiction here, as there is (IMO) with the alternate dimensions thing - it's just that there exists an unseen aspect of this one actual reality.

so you can choose your paradoxes and nurv can't

here's one...

you've made the claim before that all the complexity in the world and the way everything still works together proves the existence of an intelligent creator (evolution thread, but it will tie in here)

you've also said that the creator is probably beyond our comprehension... i.e. pretty darn complex

to follow your creationism logic... wouldn't the creator him (or her) self have to have been created by an intelligent being/force?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But there's not a contradiction here, as there is (IMO) with the alternate dimensions thing - it's just that there exists an unseen aspect of this one actual reality.

Yes Rian (and Nurv, for your sake), I don't REALLY see this as a weakness in the Christian viewpoint... but wondered if others would perceive it that way. I don't see the spirit would as having the material components that this material world does... at least not at present, though we're not even told THAT much about it and discerning the nature of it is speculation on my part. Belief that it EXISTS however, is faith in one aspect of basic Christianity, that's all. As far as the spirit world encountering the material at some point in the future... also not spelled out for us. To us Christians, God has reserved a good number of surprises, just as Gandalf tells the hobbits that Aragorn has, using the metaphor of a cook not wanting his guests to know all that will be served at the meal.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
to follow your creationism logic... wouldn't the creator him (or her) self have to have been created by an intelligent being/force?

Not when one views the Creator as apart from, and greater than, His creation.

Besides, your conclusion only gives rise to the next problem: who/what created the Creator and where did That come from? One can go on infinitely, and it seems a useless exercise.

[Rían]

by Nurvi
You asked.

Yes, I did, and thank you for your thoughtful, detailed post.


I'm going to respond by backing up a level here and talking about ... talking

(and Nurvi - I hope you do NOT feel attacked at ALL by any of us! I think the purpose of these discussions is to learn and think thinks thru and share our ideas with others. I know that if I bring forth an opinion, I hope that people will comment on it, especially including any logical difficulties or inconsistencies they see with it. That's why discussion is so helpful! It helps us to think things through and realize aspects that we may have missed. There are good, kind, intelligent people here - let's really bring things up and hash them out and see if they stand up to scrutiny! If they don't, then it's probably time to examine some other ideas. Please do NOT take any disagreements personally - but rather take advantage of the good minds that are willing to think things out with you. )

When you and I pretty much agreed on the concept of absolute truth of certain things, I thought we had some common ground for discussion. But now that you've brought up the alternate dimension idea, I need to back up and try to establish some things, or else I don't think we'll be able to really discuss anything.

There are a couple of things (I'll bring up 4) that I think are necessary for a true conversation (as opposed to just being silly and having fun, which I like to do, too!). These things are usually not formally stated before talking, but nevertheless are ASSUMED to be true. However, the alternate dimensions thing, IMO, violates one of them. (and btw, since we all like science here, these 4 things are ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for science to even exist.)

I'll move to another post, because this is getting long, and I don't like to wade thru long posts!

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so you can choose your paradoxes and nurv can't

Alright, I see the winky smiley, but I need to comment on this - there's a HUGE difference between a paradox and a self-contradictory statement. A paradox is a statement that is true but has an appearance of contradiction (which can be explained). A self-contradictory statement is one that carries a contradiction within itself - and by definition HAS to be false.

I wouldn't call the spirit world aspect of Christianity a paradox, anyway, but even if you do, it is NOT self-contradictory. But Nurvi's example of a person being able to create their own creator DOES carry a contradiction within itself, and thus CANNOT be true.

Do you see the difference?

you've made the claim before that all the complexity in the world and the way everything still works together proves the existence of an intelligent creator (evolution thread, but it will tie in here)

you've also said that the creator is probably beyond our comprehension... i.e. pretty darn complex

to follow your creationism logic... wouldn't the creator him (or her) self have to have been created by an intelligent being/force?

Well, I'll have to table this one for detailed discussion, but quickly:
the first sentence - I never said "proves"; I say "indicates" - huge difference.

the second sentence - BROWNIE! You actually think I said that? ("probably beyond our comprehension") ?!?! That's IRex's claim, and I always fight him on that point! You bad boy! *whacks brownie with a rock from Mt. St. Helens that is actually 16 years old but was dated by evolutionists to be 250,000 to 1 million years old* (I agree with the "pretty darn complex" part, but NOT with the "probably beyond our comprehension" part.)

the third sentence - the quick answer is that it's obvious that SOMETHING had to be here in the beginning - we can see this by looking around us and noticing that something is here . It's logically impossible for something to be self-created; it is logically necessary for there to be something (anything from the Christian God to a blob of goo) that was self-existent (i.e., not created), even for your infinity scenario to work. But I don't want to get into that now, altho I think it will come up as we discuss Nurvi's thoughts.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It's logically impossible for something to be self-created; it is logically necessary for there to be something (anything from the Christian God to a blob of goo) that was self-existent (i.e., not created), even for your infinity scenario to work.

so the question is which is more likely to be self-existant... the world we see around us or a godlike being who is somewhat less visible?

either way, the complexity from intelligence argument doesn't hold much water

(you can scratch the comprehension part i wrongly attributed to you... though i would assume one that can create universes would be somewhat beyond us... at least for the moment)

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
so the question is which is more likely to be self-existant... the world we see around us or a godlike being who is somewhat less visible?

No, I was talking about initial things, since your post was about God somehow being created. I was NOT talking about the world we see around us as an initial thing. I was saying the world around us is evidence that SOMETHING had to be there at the beginning (and thus self-existent). I was too hasty, and I guess you misunderstood me.

The world is NOT self-existent, it is created, whether by God or by natural evolutionary forces

(you can scratch the comprehension part i wrongly attributed to you... though i would assume one that can create universes would be somewhat beyond us... at least for the moment)

I agree with "somewhat beyond us", but I read your "probably beyond our comprehension" to be that we can't comprehend Him on ANY level. I totally agree that He is at least somewhat beyond us - I would say He's a great deal beyond us! but we CAN have a meaningful comprehension of Him, since we are made in His image. But now back to Nurvi's post ....

[Rían]

(Nurvi's response, con't)

I think the most important assumption that MUST be agreed upon is that two things that are contradictory cannot both be true. This can be summed up as follows: "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense or relationship." So if the goal is rational conversation, then these statements cannot be allowed (well, of course they can be said, but if the contradiction is pointed out, the one that says it needs to agree that the statement is false.)

IOW, imagine that you come over to my house and we start talking about family pets, and I call my cute little (actually, BIG!) dog over, and say "Here is my dog, and he's also a cat!"

I think that either you would:

• 1. politely point out that he is a dog, and not a cat; indeed, that an animal CANNOT be both a dog and a cat (altho he can have cat-like tendencies, but this is a different thing); or
  
  2. decide that you are unable to hold a rational conversation with me, and talk politely about the weather until you find a good opportunity to leave.

And I would say that those 2 options would be the correct reaction.


So, looking at your ideas in that last post, to me, the idea of you creating a creator that created you is a self-contradictory thing and therefore cannot be true - you had to be in existence already to think of and create the creator, so how could the creator then have created you?

And the whole idea of different realities falls into the same category, IMO - at least if some of the realities include things that are contradictory to each other. And I can guarantee that if most religions that I know of are included, there ARE contradictory statements involved, so this idea of multiple realities CANNOT be true. Do you see what I mean? Do you agree?

IMO, there is ONE wholly consistent reality (i.e., self-contradictions are NOT in existence), altho we as limited humans can't comprehend it all. Would you agree with this?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
No, I was talking about initial things, since your post was about God somehow being created. I was NOT talking about the world we see around us as an initial thing. I was saying the world around us is evidence that SOMETHING had to be there at the beginning (and thus self-existent). I was too hasty, and I guess you misunderstood me.

so complex and intelligent beings do not necessarily have to be created... they can come about by other means (eventhough we don't yet comprehend these means)?

[Rían]

No, I'm talking about that there HAS to have been SOMETHING that was uncreated in the beginning, by logical necessity. There is no logical constraint that says what that something has to be like, tho. It could be somewhere on the scale from God to goo. But it CANNOT have been created; for to create one's self is a logical impossibility; one cannot exist before one exists in order to create one's self.

As far as everything after that, it falls under the law of "for every effect, there must be a cause." And it's more reasonable, IMO, to see that for a complex effect, such as an animal, the cause behind it must be intentional and intelligent.

Do you see the difference? ONE thing must be self-existent; the rest are either ALSO self-existent, or are created; and we KNOW that things on earth are effects. Even evolution says this. So they fall in the "created" or "caused" category (either by God or natural causes).

THis is hard to explain by typing; let me know if you get what I'm trying to say or if I need to try some more.

[brownjenkins]

this is part of the reason why i am against a "beginning"... i don't believe something can just "come from nothing"

the logical alternative is something must have always been... in my mind this something is matter and energy... things we can observe... and also things which are simple... not a supreme being

and since the timescale is infinite, any development of any complexity is possible... and in fact, all developments are probable... and may even all exist, as nurv has said to an extent... we, however, only can observe the one we exist in