How do you define "God" without religion?

[RI Patriots fan]

Perhaps the single most successful theoretical construct we have is quantum mechanics. We have no idea how it works. One of the biggies in the field, Richard Feynman, says it's safe to say nobody understands it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding out as much as we possibly can about our universe. The funny part is, one principle of quantum mechanics is we can't know some of it.

I have no problem with the idea that we have to posit subjective religious belief with only indirect proof of whatever each belief espouses -- for example, the phenomena of life, or of subjective consciousness. We can examine the evidence for how it is that religious is a universal impulse, despite the "what if nobody's parents ever had a religion" counter. Stomp it out in the middle of a forest somewhere, and it'll come back a generation later. Why?
The answer can simply be that that's how our minds work. That doesn't prove the postulates of any given religion. It does make the exercise of challenging the religious for proof something of a fool's errand.

Sort of like trying to know all there is to know about a particle.

PFnV

Because we have a God sized hole in our lives that can only be truly filled by our creator.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Yes, human "progress".....progress as defined by whom?

Humanity...

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

I feel like we're losing our direction here, let's cut this tangent off and go back to where we were before?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Humanity...

"Humanity" has hardly been united in it's vision of progress....

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

"Humanity" has hardly been united in it's vision of progress....

OK, I will give you the example from the video: Islam was the center of intellectual discourse and discovery from 800-1100, and then an influential Imam basically said science was the devil and now you've got a society of people 900 years later still living in the dark ages because of it, and significantly affecting humanity as a whole. Add on to that what Christianity was up to at the same time and bada bing bada boom you've got the dark ages and the progress of humanity is stunted for centuries.

I am not judging current progress or direction, as that would be impossible, I can only look at history and choose to learn from its mistakes and point out the warning signs when I see them.

I feel like we're slipping away from any relevancy in this conversation. Would you care to go back to providing a particular reason you believe in a God perchance? Or maybe how you personally define a God? That could get us back on track.

If however you'd like to take it in another direction I'd be happy to go there as well as it is too rare to have a good theological conversation and I'd hate to give up this opportunity too soon.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

OK, I will give you the example from the video: Islam was the center of intellectual discourse and discovery from 800-1100, and then an influential Imam basically said science was the devil and now you've got a society of people 900 years later still living in the dark ages because of it, and significantly affecting humanity as a whole. Add on to that what Christianity was up to at the same time and bada bing bada boom you've got the dark ages and the progress of humanity is stunted for centuries.

I am not judging current progress or direction, as that would be impossible, I can only look at history and choose to learn from its mistakes and point out the warning signs when I see them.

I feel like we're slipping away from any relevancy in this conversation. Would you care to go back to providing a particular reason you believe in a God perchance? Or maybe how you personally define a God? That could get us back on track.

If however you'd like to take it in another direction I'd be happy to go there as well as it is too rare to have a good theological conversation and I'd hate to give up this opportunity too soon.

Are you equating the Dark Ages with the Roman Catholic church because if you are, you might take a little deeper look. If not for the Roman Catholic church, the "dark age" would have been far darker. If it weren't for the scholars and monks of the Roman Catholic church, Western Europe would have lost all classical learning.
If you look at the rise of education and learning in Western Europe, you need only look to the Roman Catholic church for it's origin.

Even today we see the Roman Catholic church committed to education and learning with 93,315 primary schools, 42,234 secondary schools, and 1358 colleges/universities worldwide . No private organization comes even remotely close to the Catholic church's commitment to learning and education.


Catholic University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The State of Catholic Schools in the US: Catholic World Report


I believe in God because I believe in the person of ************ as God.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Are you equating the Dark Ages with the Roman Catholic church because if you are, you might take a little deeper look. If not for the Roman Catholic church, the "dark age" would have been far darker. If it weren't for the scholars and monks of the Roman Catholic church, Western Europe would have lost all classical learning.
If you look at the rise of education and learning in Western Europe, you need only look to the Roman Catholic church for it's origin.

Even today we see the Roman Catholic church committed to education and learning with 93,315 primary schools, 42,234 secondary schools, and 1358 colleges/universities worldwide . No private organization comes even remotely close to the Catholic church's commitment to learning and education.


Catholic University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The State of Catholic Schools in the US: Catholic World Report


I believe in God because I believe in the person of ************ as God.

I will tap out. If you want to do a new thread we can debate the merits of Catholicism historically and/or currently, or the divinity of Jesus, or any other subject; I am game for that completely and would enjoy that. I feel that if we continue down road we're currently on here, we will accomplish little in intellectual discourse as we will be attempting to encompass far too broad of a topic all at once and any meaning will be lost in the maelstorm of the back and forth.

I am greatly enjoying this though and I hope that you, and everyone else don't take personal offense when I say anything and if you do feel something is too personal, feel free to call me out on it as even though I'm an *******, I try to be a nice *******.

I will give you the choice of how to start any further discussion (if you so choose).

 

[Leave No Doubt]

I've done some research on that

My characterization has to do with the depth of spirituality, or more to the point, lack thereof. But I suppose if you'd like, you can lay Hitler on the doorstep of religion as well, and Stalin studied to be a priest. I'm not quite sure how Mao fits into the "Holy Terror" pattern, but you can simply re-characterize a specifically atheist doctrine -- Marxism-Leninism -- as a religion, and look ma, everything's religion's fault.

I've actually espoused such a line in the past, but I don't think it's accurate.

PFnV

Ohok, I get what you mean now I guess what I think is signifigant about the Nazi worship of Satanic forces/rituals/beliefs isn't to lay religion at their door really; it's more that their behavior is considered by most to be Evil, inhuman, etc. so it seems related that these same people were also heavily and seriously into the practice of not just the occult, but the very darkest side of the occult. Who does that? People who would mentally and physically torture and commit mass murder I suppose. Was the Nazi's behavior caused by this worship or did that worship change them into what they became?

I don't want to get off topic but there's some real interesting stuff out there about things the Nazi's were dabbling in, a lot of that history has been obscured by the Holocaust. I would not vote for a known Luciferian if he or she were running for President.

Back to regular programming

 

[PatsFanInVa]

hey, in a way, you could say that it's a weak premise on my part, and that the religious impulse manifests in cultic expressions... add weapons and ideology, makes its own sauce.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

hey, in a way, you could say that it's a weak premise on my part, and that the religious impulse manifests in cultic expressions... add weapons and ideology, makes its own sauce.

So one's innate desire for a religion/something to believe in won't necessarily lead one down a good path, it can take you on a bad one as well. That makes sense really; and I suppose if you go down that bad path far enough, along the way you're handed weapons, technology, immoral experimentation, extreme science...the perfect storm not just for evil deeds, but also power, so much power that they see themselves as "god-like".

Good stuff:singing:

 

[RI Patriots fan]

I will tap out. If you want to do a new thread we can debate the merits of Catholicism historically and/or currently, or the divinity of Jesus, or any other subject; I am game for that completely and would enjoy that. I feel that if we continue down road we're currently on here, we will accomplish little in intellectual discourse as we will be attempting to encompass far too broad of a topic all at once and any meaning will be lost in the maelstorm of the back and forth.

I am greatly enjoying this though and I hope that you, and everyone else don't take personal offense when I say anything and if you do feel something is too personal, feel free to call me out on it as even though I'm an *******, I try to be a nice *******.

I will give you the choice of how to start any further discussion (if you so choose).

Hey, I was just answering your questions. I will gladly discuss any topic you would like to discuss.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

Hey, I was just answering your questions. I will gladly discuss any topic you would like to discuss.

OK, I will focus on your last statement which I believe is your answer to the evidence inquiry.

You believe in God because you believe Jesus was God. Believing in something because you believe in something isn't really a good answer to "What evidence is there of there being a God?"

An example to help you hear it how I am hearing it:

"I believe Elvis is still alive because I believe his music was awesome."

Not exactly going to hold up in court as evidence of his being alive.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

OK, I will focus on your last statement which I believe is your answer to the evidence inquiry.

You believe in God because you believe Jesus was God. Believing in something because you believe in something isn't really a good answer to "What evidence is there of there being a God?"

An example to help you hear it how I am hearing it:

"I believe Elvis is still alive because I believe his music was awesome."

Not exactly going to hold up in court as evidence of his being alive.

I think I was answering a question based upon a different topic when I gave that answer.

As for the proof for God's existence, I could point to St Thomas Aquinas's proofs. I'm sure you've heard of them so I won't write them out. Here's a link just in case You haven't heard them before (but I'm pretty sure you have):


Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are of course other proofs as well. This link of Peter Kreeft gives 20 detailed proofs from various sources:


Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

I think I was answering a question based upon a different topic when I gave that answer.

As for the proof for God's existence, I could point to St Thomas Aquinas's proofs. I'm sure you've heard of them so I won't write them out. Here's a link just in case You haven't heard them before (but I'm pretty sure you have):


Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are of course other proofs as well. This link of Peter Kreeft gives 20 detailed proofs from various sources:


Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Wow, OK, I read through it and decided that I will counter with my own wiki link:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of your links' points will fall somewhere within my link's list. I will allow you to go through and pick them all out on your own.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Wow, OK, I read through it and decided that I will counter with my own wiki link:

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of your links' points will fall somewhere within my link's list. I will allow you to go through and pick them all out on your own.

It was a supplemental link to wiki...but ok.

But that's fine. I appreciate your smart guy response back.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

It was a supplemental link to wiki...but ok.

But that's fine. I appreciate your smart guy response back.

Supplemental to what? You said "I could give you this list of evidence [link] and there are others as well [link]"

You offered nothing to supplement. Unless you are implying that the non-wiki links were somehow a step above the wiki link, in which I apologize for the confusion. They are not. They are all the same list of logical fallacies that have been refuted over and over again for centuries.

I was also hoping for a direct conversation, rather than just discuss links to other people's thoughts.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Supplemental to what? You said "I could give you this list of evidence [link] and there are others as well [link]"

You offered nothing to supplement. Unless you are implying that the non-wiki links were somehow a step above the wiki link, in which I apologize for the confusion. They are not. They are all the same list of logical fallacies that have been refuted over and over again for centuries.

I was also hoping for a direct conversation, rather than just discuss links to other people's thoughts.

I gave you the wiki link in addition to the first link which detailed Aquinas' proofs. I gave you the wiki link because I thought it might be helpful (because it came with commentary) in addition to the previous link which was also on Aquinas' proofs. So much for trying to be helpful.

What I got back in return was a smart guy response. So whatever. I don't waste my time arguing with people who use ad hominens or who give me attitude for just trying to help facilitate a discussion.
No thanks.....good luck.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

I gave you the wiki link in addition to the first link which detailed Aquinas' proofs. I gave you the wiki link because I thought it might be helpful (because it came with commentary) in addition to the previous link which was also on Aquinas' proofs. So much for trying to be helpful.

What I got back in return was a smart guy response. So whatever. I don't waste my time arguing with people who use ad hominens or who give me attitude for just trying to help facilitate a discussion.
No thanks.....good luck.

You answer questions with questions over and over and then finally when you could evade no longer you give me a link to "proof" from 1270 with no personal opinion or thoughts with it and you don't expect me to counter similarly? I was looking for a personal discussion on the subject, which apparently you weren't interested in.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

You answer questions with questions over and over and then finally when you could evade no longer you give me a link to "proof" from 1270 with no personal opinion or thoughts with it and you don't expect me to counter similarly? I was looking for a personal discussion on the subject, which apparently you weren't interested in.

"Evade"......lol. Yes, like I haven't discussed this topic 5000 times already in my lifetime.

As you can see from my posts on this board, I engage posters frequently without any... "evasion".

I just don't waste my time engaging people who use ad hominems or give me attitude......just not worth my time.

 

[patsfan13]

On the subject of various types of terrorists who explain themselves with religion, I think I'm with LND. And it doesn't much matter that they explain themselves to themselves using religion (i.e., that they are fanatics rather than charlatans.) They could as easily explain themselves using junk science, as in the case of the Nazis, as using junk religion, as in the case of suicide bombers. A serious conversation about the thing itself is probably not well-served by a sidetrack about the deleterious effects of believing its distortions.

But it does bring to mind the question of how one gets from rather strict and rule-driven interpretations of religions (especially the Abrahamic faiths) to the somewhat more mystic wool-gathering we're engaged in here.

The truth is that our new-agey culture isn't alone (we've mentioned Spinoza already). There have always been philosophic and mystic currents in the very religions that give rise to the destructive zealots. By and large, the mystics and philosophers have not been the ones blowing up the buildings.

I feel certain that given the prior examples in this post, somebody will bring up the occultism that was all the rage among the Nazi leadership; I don't think, however, that you get to Auschwitz through mysticism, but through psuedo-science.

PFnV

At the time the way the Germans viewed Darwin was pretty widespread. Many scientist believed in genetic superiority of one ethnic group over others based on their views of Darwin, IQ tests ect. .

It wasn't junk science just the logical outcome of the Darwinian world view.