Is God really real? page 54

1460 posts

Flag Post

Science doesn’t dictate how I should value, but it helps to locate facts that, in themselves, hold no value at all.

Granted, and quite acute. Although that is part of why it irks me when people don’t locate the values of science as fundamental to some of their other values, or things they value. Not to say that is particular of you Tuje.

But take happiness, a subjective feeling. It is, in itself, always ultimately more valuable than a single fact of science: happiness is both dependent on a subject, but also it’s own intended destination. It is perfect in itself, it doesn’t have a value dependent of it’s use, it has a value in itself. It is not a mere tool, it’s whole in it’s entirety.

Disagree with that. I feel like you are suggesting is inherently valuable, just because? I grant that it is a root value of many others, as you suggest – and that most other values are just abstractions of the will to happiness. But, there are instances where happiness is valued other mandates. Or those who specifically alienate happiness, for their reasons.

Although as a person choice, I would grant such a notion fair enough.

Also your sacrifice of things integral to so much of the universal happiness for your own personal happiness is… unsettling? It seems, harmless as a person credo, but truly monstrous in it’s conceit and en masse implications.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Granted, and quite acute. Although that is part of why it irks me when people don’t locate the values of science as fundamental to some of their other values, or things they value. Not to say that is particular of you Tuje.

If I may ask, what are values of science? Do you mean scientific method? Can you give some examples?


But take happiness, a subjective feeling. It is, in itself, always ultimately more valuable than a single fact of science: happiness is both dependent on a subject, but also it’s own intended destination. It is perfect in itself, it doesn’t have a value dependent of it’s use, it has a value in itself. It is not a mere tool, it’s whole in it’s entirety.

Disagree with that. I feel like you are suggesting [happiness?] is inherently valuable, just because? I grant that it is a root value of many others, as you suggest – and that most other values are just abstractions of the will to happiness. But, there are instances where happiness is valued other mandates. Or those who specifically alienate happiness, for their reasons.

Although as a person choice, I would grant such a notion fair enough.

Yes, in my opinion feelings are the common denominators of our value-system; I think our whole system of placing values to world we see & feel with our senses are based on feelings.

And about other instances which place value on happiness itself, for example. I think it’s horrible being grown up in a culture that tries suppress all and any feelings of happiness or any other feeling(s) for whatever reason. I think that every feeling is inherently valuable and every one of them tells a different story about you as a person. If one or more of those feelings are suppressed by outside influence, I feel they have been taken some of the core elements of self-insight away from them and twisted their “inherent feedback system” to be self-harming in one or more ways.

Also your sacrifice of things integral to so much of the universal happiness for your own personal happiness is… unsettling? It seems, harmless as a person credo, but truly monstrous in it’s conceit and en masse implications.

No, I don’t definitely want anyone else’s happiness to be sacrificed before mine. On the contrary, I feel helping people to reach happiness creates happiness to me as well. One thing I have noticed in my life is that happiness comes in numbers and suffering walks with you alone. What I mean with is that being alone in your suffering makes it very likely to stay with you and a great deal of happiness is created by social interaction, which (almost?) always creates happiness to at least two persons.

 
Flag Post

If I may ask, what are values of science? Do you mean scientific method? Can you give some examples?

I would say the value of repetition of sensory data removed from bias? Empiricism? It seems kind of, meh. But I feel unites mankind into a progressive, universal body. It provides the field for the expansion of human power. The scientific method is inclusive and empowering, which I feel are pretty ennobling virtues. Further, that expansion of power has led to all sorts of pleasantries and pleasures, and I find many who enjoy the harvest are not present when it is sown.

No, I don’t definitely want anyone else’s happiness to be sacrificed before mine. On the contrary, I feel helping people to reach happiness creates happiness to me as well.

I get that, and I think is quite honest. Most people get kind of squirmy about it. But looking outside of personal interactions, I see the scientific method as the most powerful tool in achieving human happiness, and that any disregard or attack on it damaging to the expansion of human happiness. So although a personal credo may be personally pleasurable, I feel it is a crime against the best aspects of the human race? Which seems a little hyperbolic, and I’m not normally one for obligations. But, perhaps something to be considered?

 
Flag Post

but you have to still answer the question “how did something come out of nothing?”

“God” is definitely not an answer to that question.

 
Flag Post

I don’t think science and religion are opposites, and the point about wanting your extra-knowledge to be relevant wasn’t really specifically about science even though I mentioned inventions, and had more to do with the lack of material truth to your claims or the values you hold. Somehow your religion never expects you to hold it consistent with the real physical properties of cause and affect and being able to figure something out. Like Gravity isn’t a word we believe in, it’s a thing that affects us and can be measured and known. Belief in God is also a brain pattern that likely encouraged early man to act moral when no one was there to see them, and is also likely further evolved our sense of agency and forward thinking that we developed to predict how other people will act, or how nature or animals react.

People live and die indifferently to whichever religious story you apply to them, and no one story ever really makes any legitimately measurable promises or explanations that would suggest they’re describing real things. I’m not disputing their usefulness to you, I’m disputing their tangibility and necessity. While I absolutely believe that it’s better to believe something that isn’t always true but causes you to act in good ways, I do not think that requires standardizing a belief system and passing it around to everyone with the threat of mortal death or abandonment by the great father figure as punishment. That just isn’t necessary to develop moral or happy thinking.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

If I may ask, what are values of science? Do you mean scientific method? Can you give some examples?

I would say the value of repetition of sensory data removed from bias? Empiricism? It seems kind of, meh. But I feel unites mankind into a progressive, universal body. It provides the field for the expansion of human power. The scientific method is inclusive and empowering, which I feel are pretty ennobling virtues. Further, that expansion of power has led to all sorts of pleasantries and pleasures, and I find many who enjoy the harvest are not present when it is sown.

Hmm… I think it can be all that, but not necessarily. I think we’re talking about opinions now.

unites mankind into a progressive, universal body

Depends on how the discoveries are used. See war technology, I can’t see that as uniting mankind.

It provides the field for the expansion of human power.

Yes, I agree, it increases the ways we can shape our environment and ourselves.

The scientific method is inclusive and empowering, which I feel are pretty ennobling virtues.

Inclusive in a way, yes. The concept is designed to take into account everything measurable (by this definition, psychology barely passes, but I think it’s science too. It just depends how you define “measurable”). Empowering… in some ways, yes. It certainly expands the mind and can be considered empowering that way.


No, I don’t definitely want anyone else’s happiness to be sacrificed before mine. On the contrary, I feel helping people to reach happiness creates happiness to me as well.

I get that, and I think is quite honest. Most people get kind of squirmy about it. But looking outside of personal interactions, I see the scientific method as the most powerful tool in achieving human happiness, and that any disregard or attack on it damaging to the expansion of human happiness. So although a personal credo may be personally pleasurable, I feel it is a crime against the best aspects of the human race? Which seems a little hyperbolic, and I’m not normally one for obligations. But, perhaps something to be considered?

I, for my part, see scientific method as the most powerful tool in achieving maximum human pleasure and convenience. Pleasure ≠ Happiness, I think happiness is much deeper feeling than pleasure and has much more dimensions too. But I’m not sure if the comparison is even valid because I wouldn’t count pleasure as an emotion, which happines certainly is. So I think there is a categorical difference between the two.

I also see scientific method as a most powerful tool in limiting and removing any physical suffering, and I definitely respect science because of that. But I see why you feel my credo (learn a new word every day, thanks) the way you feel it. I have so far only explained my belief system in relevance to why I believe in God (and not use scientific method instead in that case). I did not in any point mean that scientific method should be scrapped and tossed away in the corner (as many of you seem to think). Instead it should be valued dependent of the goal you reach, and I feel it doesn’t do well in the goal of reaching happiness, and my religious beliefs have proved to be far more efficient to me for reaching that goal. Hence scientific method being ‘irrelevant’ to me in that case only (usefulness of scientific method should be however valued in case by case basis). You should also note that I did not at any point say my religious beliefs dictated the ways I feel happiness should be achieved but instead those are formed by the philosophical aspects of my belief-system I have been continuously explaining here. I hoped this helped you to see better where I stand.

EDIT: Added the term ‘religious’ where they belonged.

@BSG:

I think many things I wrote above are also relevant to what you posted. I don’t know what you mean by the lack of material truth to my claims or values, or maybe I also answered that above?

About your second paragraph:

I’m not disputing their usefulness to you, I’m disputing their tangibility and necessity.

Yes, they may not be necessary to all, but to some they may be. I never said they are necessary to achieving happiness, but I feel that my religious beliefs are absolutely the most efficient option available
for me to achieve happiness. (PS: I don’t want this discussion to delve in my religious beliefs, I have long ago decided that I will not discuss them in public media).

I do not think that requires standardizing a belief system and passing it around to everyone with the threat of mortal death or abandonment by the great father figure as punishment. That just isn’t necessary to develop moral or happy thinking.

Yes, I think no one should pass around religion threatening with any negative of punisment and/or mortal death. It’s not necessary. Instead being an example of good and loveful acting often evokes similar responses from others around you in time, and I think that is absolutely necessary.

 
Flag Post

Hmm… I think it can be all that, but not necessarily. I think we’re talking about opinions now.

Could I press you on that? Looking, I still feel it is pretty undeniably true. Except maybe ‘unites mankind’, perhaps a better term would be ‘subjects mankind’. We have no say in the matter, it simply is, and universally so. So to press you specifically, when is science not universal? When is science not empowering?

Depends on how the discoveries are used. See war technology, I can’t see that as uniting mankind.

Hehe, I do not necessarily mean pleasantly. I mean more fundamentally. I mean that it creates, establishes, and maintains the very concept of any sort of rational, common world, upon which we are all dependent. It is firmament. It is the field, and the rules of the game. There is no arguing with a bomb, it is not dependent upon your approval for its existence, and in that explosion it unifies all in a display of superlative commonality.

Inclusive in a way, yes. The concept is designed to take into account everything measurable (by this definition, psychology barely passes, but I think it’s science too. It just depends how you define “measurable”). Empowering… in some ways, yes. It certainly expands the mind and can be considered empowering that way.

I think psychology will become a harder science as we get better at it. I don’t believe there is anything about human psychology that is not quantifiable. It’s just in that difficult margin of ‘knowing everything, about everything, all the time’. But that’s more of as aside. I feel empowering stands, beyond merely ‘in some way’s. I would suggest power is, inherently, science. That pattern recognition, consequence, is the only power we have. That power is relative to ones surroundings, and all interaction with surroundings, are within the domain of science. What power exists that cannot influence time or space? What power exists that is not drawn from that?

It only in establishing a commonality, a set of rules, a common field, (I like this analogy) that power is even possible. In absolute void, in absolute chaos, there can be no semblance of the notion.

I did not in any point mean that scientific method should be scrapped and tossed away in the corner (as many of you seem to think). Instead it should be valued dependent of the goal you reach, and I feel it doesn’t do well in the goal of reaching happiness, and my religious beliefs have proved to be far more efficient to me for reaching that goal. (…ect)

Don’t mean to suggest that you did. But here’s where the arm chair teeth gnashing fanatic in me comes out. I find the idea of religion being essential to your happiness frightening. I hope, that your self evaluation in that regard is actually incorrect, and just priority biased. I feel your subordination of science to happiness, amounts to truth subordinate to happiness, and that without that truth we throw away the only bulwark upon which a common happiness can stand. That such an opinion, such a feeling, is a seductive one and for that very reason perhaps the most dangerous antagonist of man as a whole. I find the idea of science within happiness as too seductively convenient, the power without the responsibility, in creating exceptions you ignore it’s universality, you create islands of differentiation subject to nothing but itself.

But, even so, as I said before, I don’t believe you are obligated to mankind, nor would I presume to dictate to you how you should feel or why. Merely that I find it a frightening concept – and one I don’t think any are truly innocent of, in small or larger degrees. Also, I have been enjoying our discussion. I don’t want my feelings on the matter to seem like a condemnation or insult. Also, you’ve actually disclosed very little about your religious inclinations, and so I’m really only flailing at a very generalized nemesis concept here.

 
Flag Post

What the heck is ‘HDGodStyle’?

It’s your argument, so if you could explain what this centrepiece of your argument is, that would be rather helpful.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

What the heck is ‘HDGodStyle’?

It’s your argument, so if you could explain what this centrepiece of your argument is, that would be rather helpful.

It’s clearly a joke…. Try not to over think it……

 
Flag Post

That would be my point, Quiet. If you’re going to make a random collection of nonsensical letters be the center of your argument, at least explain it, give some justification. Else you’re just another troll to be flagged and ignored.

 
Flag Post

I think that God is what existance is. Before God there was nothing, without God there would be nothing. He is actively holding all things in existance, He is the core supply of all energy. (Revelation 4:11, Collosians 1:14-17)

He is that first bit of sentience, just awareness and nothing, then He realized He could craft something from His own sentience, so He did, and bang.

That is why He is worthy of worship, He is the very reason you can think at all.

The core reasons He created everything the way it is, I believe are these three:

1 – So that He could experience what it’s like to NOT be God.
(He can’t not be God, but He did, I think, forget that He was God, during the temptation, due to hunger, pain, and all things physical – but yet in that state of forgetfullness, He still chose…. God)

2 – So that He could experience death, non-existance.

3 – So that He could make other beings with their own free will, and yet no chaos.
(and this is the one that takes time)

He did #1 and #2 as Christ.

In my personal relationship with God, I most certainly do not just sit and pray. Some people have taken Christianity and muddied it for either financial profit or other evil purposes, so what we have ended up with, is a bunch of so called Christians who think that all they can do is sit and pray, so far from the truth this is, they have lost a hold of following Gods law. The first Christians knew the powerful value of ritualistically following Gods commandments – 1st John 3:22.

Many other practices have clear workings to follow, clear paths, a path to enlitenment, a path to eternal life, these paths involve specific steps, not just some belief, that’s why the modern form of American Christianity can be easily dismissed by those following practices that make them actually do specific things day by day.

The modern Christian thought is that one does not need to follow Gods law, the whole 613 laws, all you have to do is just believe, right? But you have to really believe. And if you really believe that’s going to lead to some sort of action. Not just prayer and going to church, but following Gods law, all that you can, just the same way others follow their steps to enlightenment. A real belief in Christ leads to a real relationship with Christ, which leads to love of God, which leads to following Gods law (at least the easy parts). And sacrifices are not needed, the Psalms say so – Psalm 69:30-32 – they can be replaced with out loud singing, and it’s also interesting that most males, at least in the USA, are already circumcised.

What am I saying? Well, if all the so-called Christians would really pay attention to what Gods law says, and do it, you would see them with the law on their arms (since that is one of the easy commandments) which in modern times is very easy to do, just get those rubber wrist bands with one commandment on each, wear them on your arms and legs, the commandment does not say how to bind them, just to bind them. (Duet 6:8) And you would see and understand that it takes more than just praying to be a real Christian, it’s hard work and a serious commitment that can come with much ridicule, especially in America. Therefore understand that in relation to the millions of people currently on earth, very few Christians exist. And most of the real ones are not in America.

Anyway, God is real, but soon, the aliens will come and bust up everything I just said…. really.
(but don’t you believe them)

 
Flag Post

It’s nice of you to describe your personal faith in detail, but this isn’t really the point of this thread.
Besides that, I also highly disagree with. Just because this god-figure supposedly is the reason for my existence does not mean that I have to worship it. What you said after that quite clearly said that your god creates stuff because he is like a curious child that wants to test things out. Everything humanscan suffer from and even their ultimate death should be there because little god was bored by his celrstial ball pit? I want worship an irresponsible, naive little brat just because I happen to be the result of one of its experiments.

 
Flag Post

From the movie Constantine
Angela Dodson: I guess God has a plan for all of us.
John Constantine: God’s a kid with an ant farm, lady. He’s not planning anything.

A different ant farm concept

 
Flag Post

Think about the question.
This question is impossible to answer because people believe in him, while some don’t
It’s an opinion, and I would like to say no, because I am a person who runs on facts, and there is no factual evidence about him. And I think he isn’t real because its obvious its not. Who believes in a being thats floats on his nimbus and created the world. It’s like believing the first humans came out of cornstalks!

But you guys can prove me wrong that god is real to your opinion.

 
Flag Post

whatever ‘knowledge’ somebody has about the existence or something, I think most of us can agree on the main point, which is that we simply don’t know. an unanswered question can never run out of paths to explore until the answer is revealed. It’s okay to repeat a point that you’ve heard a million times before, but the best part is being creative and saying it in your own way and finding even MORE crazy, unrealistic yet undeniable theories.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:

onereason.org

I do not feel there was an ulterior motive to this post.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Necero:

onereason.org

I do not feel there was an ulterior motive to this post.

Well I’m a muslim so obviously I want people to accept the truth, that website was for people interested to learn more. From what I read in the rules there’s nothing wrong with posting a link to a website relevant to the subject.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Necero:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Necero:

onereason.org

I do not feel there was an ulterior motive to this post.

Well I’m a muslim so obviously I want people to accept the truth, that website was for people interested to learn more. From what I read in the rules there’s nothing wrong with posting a link to a website relevant to the subject.

The driving question of this thread is ‘Is god really real?’
You did not present an answer to that, you presented information for people who think that the answer is yes.
The problem is that you didn’t present any argument.
You could for example explain the most important one for you, that convinces you that yes must be the correct answer and then link to a place on that website that goes in a bit more detail.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Necero:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Necero:

onereason.org

I do not feel there was an ulterior motive to this post.

Well I’m a muslim so obviously I want people to accept the truth, that website was for people interested to learn more. From what I read in the rules there’s nothing wrong with posting a link to a website relevant to the subject.

The driving question of this thread is ‘Is god really real?’
You did not present an answer to that, you presented information for people who think that the answer is yes.
The problem is that you didn’t present any argument.
You could for example explain the most important one for you, that convinces you that yes must be the correct answer and then link to a place on that website that goes in a bit more detail.

Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Necero:
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Necero:

onereason.org

I do not feel there was an ulterior motive to this post.

Well I’m a muslim so obviously I want people to accept the truth, that website was for people interested to learn more. From what I read in the rules there’s nothing wrong with posting a link to a website relevant to the subject.

The driving question of this thread is ‘Is god really real?’
You did not present an answer to that, you presented information for people who think that the answer is yes.
The problem is that you didn’t present any argument.
You could for example explain the most important one for you, that convinces you that yes must be the correct answer and then link to a place on that website that goes in a bit more detail.

Oh yes I see what you mean, my bad.

 
Flag Post

Well technically it’s impossible to prove either way, so you can’t really say that a god exists or doesn’t. I personally BELIEVE some bloke/lass runs the show, but I know I can’t prove it.

 
Flag Post

It’s impossible to answer, as its a belief, not a fact
/done.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by niceman555:

It’s impossible to answer, as its a belief, not a fact

There you are then. God (insert whichever god here) tangibly exists as a series of engram patterns within the brain of each believer. Thus god can quantifiably be said to exist within each believer’s own head.

 
Flag Post

I’m fairly new to the Kongregate forums. Fear not! I’ve posted in numerous forums.

Anyway, God is like the Big Bang theory. Remember, it’s simply a theory.

I do not wish to define “theory”: go ahead. See? A theory obviously isn’t a fact, but merely, an opinion.

God is the same. Although I am Christian, I have never achieved the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is real. I saw what it did with my own eyes.

I won’t explain the process. If you are a Christian and wish to attain the Holy Spirit, you must tell the Holy Spirit (in your mind) that you’ll let go of your sins and focus on reaching Heaven in the afterlife.

Why would I lie? I can definitely say the Holy Spirit exists. The people who have the Holy Spirit pray through them sound like their speaking a “strange” language. Let’s not go farther:

The Holy Spirit from my perspective is real. The Holy Spirit is most likely tied to God so… I must say God is most likely real, in my opinion.

No hate. If I was an atheist or an agnostic, I would really feel abused by this comment, because I’d feel like “Potshot30 might be right! No, he can’t, God isn’t real.” Please, I know how it feels.

But in my personal opinion, I’m a God-loving Christian that believes in it. It as in God. Nobody knows if God is male/female. It’s simply a “Almighty Being”. If you want a “He”, talk about Jesus Christ.

 
Flag Post
Remember, it’s simply a theory. I do not wish to define “theory”: go ahead. See? A theory obviously isn’t a fact, but merely, an opinion.

Thus indicating you do not understand what a scientific theory actually is.

The Holy Spirit is real. I saw what it did with my own eyes.

And what would that be?

Why would I lie? I can definitely say the Holy Spirit exists. The people who have the Holy Spirit pray through them sound like their speaking a “strange” language. Let’s not go farther:

Are you talking about speaking in tongues?

If I was an atheist or an agnostic, I would really feel abused by this comment, because I’d feel like “Potshot30 might be right! No, he can’t, God isn’t real.” Please, I know how it feels.

Uh, no. I don’t feel abused at all, and I don’t think you’re right. You didn’t say anything except what you believe – no evidence whatsoever was provided. What do you mean by you, “know how it feels?” You know how what feels?