6 ms·

I never understood the whole God-thing, except as a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon. How can you believe in something that has never be

by mixmax 17y ago

I never understood the whole God-thing, except as a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon. How can you believe in something that has never been validated, except by believers of the fairytale that tell you it's true? If I told someone I believed in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus or The flying Spaghetti monster people would think I'm crazy. But they are just as well supported (anecdotes and no evidence) as the God-thing. I honestly don't get it.

bmj 17y ago
Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.
- albemuth 17y ago
  And did they find anything? As in something that a non believer would accept?
  - bmj 17y ago
    Apparently, since Christianity is alive and well.
ramoq 17y ago
Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc) My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god. - The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"
- mixmax 17y ago
  Well, that seems a pretty poor proof. Or rather it's not a proof of anything at all, it's just a silly story.
- bena 17y ago
  First of all, we do have proof the world exists. We don't have proof your boat-as-metaphor-for-God exists. Secondly, all you have done is restate the "Boeing 747" argument. Which only shows that the person arguing doesn't understand the science behind the other side. Atheists do not believe there is a God because there is no convincing proof that one exists. They believe it in much the same manner you do not believe Santa Claus exists.
- DanHulton 17y ago
  You have GOT to be joking. That's not a proof, but a parable. Worse, it's an ignorant parable, which can be defeated by: "Then who made God?" (And let me head off at the pass the whole "God was always there" argument. If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?)
  - jimbokun 17y ago
    "If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?" Not to defend the argument you are responding to, but if by "reality" you mean the universe, the Big Bang says that the universe did have a beginning. In which case it makes sense to suppose that something without a beginning is responsible for the thing with a beginning (the universe). I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this argument, and talked about whether or not the universe does have a "beginning" in a Brief History of Time, leading into a discussion of a bowl shaped space-time or something, at which point he lost me. :)
- joubert 17y ago
  OMG.
atas 17y ago
Because you were taught so from an early age. Because everyone else around you believed so. And it is the sophistication of religion that makes it more believable over Santa Claus or flying spaghetti.
- mixmax 17y ago
  That is probably very right. My family isn't religious, my friends aren't religious, and I come from one of the least religious countries in the world. I don't think I've ever had a real life discussion with someone that truly believed in God. So to me the whole discussion seems like a farce, probably because I've never been indoctrinated to believe it from family, friends and society.
jimbokun 17y ago
Some people have a direct, personal, subjective experience of God. 'I can’t really explain what happened next. I was standing there looking at the statue, and then I discovered I was on my knees. I could hear an interior voice speaking to me. Not with my ears–it was more like a radio inside suddenly clicked on. The voice was both intimate and authoritative, and it filled me. It said, “I am your life. You think that your life is your name, your personality, your history. But that is not your life. I am your life.” It went on, naming that “life force” notion I admired: “Beyond that, you think that your life is the fact that you are alive, that your breath goes in and out, that energy courses in your veins. But even that is not your life. I am your life. “I am the foundation of everything else in your life.”' http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/ http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/ If you had this experience, would you still find God just "a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon?" Understandably, this might not convince you, because you did not have this experience, so you have the right to be skeptical. The Gospels are accounts of these kinds of experiences, except even more tangible. Instead of a voice in the head of one individual, the communication channel was an entire human life, and events incompatible with our normal experience of reality. So, here are two potential reasons to believe in God. Either a direct, personal experience of God. Or the witness of others having this kind of experience, who you find credible. You seem to be saying that no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence. A few billion people have a different view of the matter, and I guess we just need to amiably agree to disagree.
- joubert 17y ago
  How is this different from other mental diseases?
- Luc 17y ago
  A few billion people have direct personal experience of God? I seriously doubt it's more than 0.1% of that, and I would class that a hallucination and some wishful thinking. I have direct personal experience of seeing the fabric of space and time, under the influence of weed, except I realized even while it was happening that it was all bollocks.
  - 17y ago
physcab 17y ago
This is not entirely true. You are simplifying thousands of years of research, both experimentally and theoretically. The reason why there is so much debate is because most people have an uneasiness believing in something that isn't entirely proven. With that said, there is lots of scientific research going into proving atleast the historical presence of Jesus. See for example, The Shroud of Turin. Also, if you ever get the chance, take a tour of the catacombs in Rome beneath St. Peter's Basilica. This is sure to give you an appreciation for the vast tradition regarding religious beliefs. YOU may not believe any of this, but you have to agree that the shear number of people over the course of THOUSANDS of years atleast deems that it is worthy of investigating.
agrinshtein 17y ago
Just to put a little twist on this discussion. I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d. Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-)) Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility. There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom. Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth. I don't understand them. Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from? Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there? So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift. However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there. G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world. What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply. This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient. (What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)

by mixmax 17y ago

bmj 17y ago

Because some incredibly intelligent people have spent their lives working out the implications of belief in God. Had, say, Pascal decided to write about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion right now.

albemuth 17y ago
And did they find anything? As in something that a non believer would accept?
- bmj 17y ago
  Apparently, since Christianity is alive and well.

ramoq 17y ago

Proving the existence of God is as simple as looking around you (nature, sun, water etc) My favourite proof is as follows: - A group of atheists approached to meet with the ruler of the land and asked him to bring forth his best scholar to debate with them on the existence of god. - The ruler summoned the scholar to meet at location x on date y @ time z. - On that date and time everyone showed up except the scholar. He was late. Very late. - The atheists were now belitting the scholars great status (he didnt' even show up!) - The scholar showed up and the ruler immediately questioned his absence. - He explained that on his way to this meeting he had to cross a river where there is usually a boat. The boat was not there. So he had to wait and wait and wait. Eventually he noticed branches falling from a nearby tree. The branches kept falling and fashioned themselves into a boat and the boat came over to him. So he used to to cross the river. - At this point everyone was quite amused espeically the atheists who replied "you expect us to believe this??" - The scholar replied, "If you can't believe a boat made itself, then how can you believe this world made itself"

mixmax 17y ago
Well, that seems a pretty poor proof. Or rather it's not a proof of anything at all, it's just a silly story.
bena 17y ago
First of all, we do have proof the world exists. We don't have proof your boat-as-metaphor-for-God exists. Secondly, all you have done is restate the "Boeing 747" argument. Which only shows that the person arguing doesn't understand the science behind the other side. Atheists do not believe there is a God because there is no convincing proof that one exists. They believe it in much the same manner you do not believe Santa Claus exists.
DanHulton 17y ago
You have GOT to be joking. That's not a proof, but a parable. Worse, it's an ignorant parable, which can be defeated by: "Then who made God?" (And let me head off at the pass the whole "God was always there" argument. If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?)
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "If God was always there, then why can't reality have always been there?" Not to defend the argument you are responding to, but if by "reality" you mean the universe, the Big Bang says that the universe did have a beginning. In which case it makes sense to suppose that something without a beginning is responsible for the thing with a beginning (the universe). I believe Stephen Hawking acknowledges this argument, and talked about whether or not the universe does have a "beginning" in a Brief History of Time, leading into a discussion of a bowl shaped space-time or something, at which point he lost me. :)
joubert 17y ago
OMG.

atas 17y ago

Because you were taught so from an early age. Because everyone else around you believed so. And it is the sophistication of religion that makes it more believable over Santa Claus or flying spaghetti.

mixmax 17y ago
That is probably very right. My family isn't religious, my friends aren't religious, and I come from one of the least religious countries in the world. I don't think I've ever had a real life discussion with someone that truly believed in God. So to me the whole discussion seems like a farce, probably because I've never been indoctrinated to believe it from family, friends and society.

jimbokun 17y ago

Some people have a direct, personal, subjective experience of God. 'I can’t really explain what happened next. I was standing there looking at the statue, and then I discovered I was on my knees. I could hear an interior voice speaking to me. Not with my ears–it was more like a radio inside suddenly clicked on. The voice was both intimate and authoritative, and it filled me. It said, “I am your life. You think that your life is your name, your personality, your history. But that is not your life. I am your life.” It went on, naming that “life force” notion I admired: “Beyond that, you think that your life is the fact that you are alive, that your breath goes in and out, that energy courses in your veins. But even that is not your life. I am your life. “I am the foundation of everything else in your life.”' http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/ http://www.frederica.com/east-now-excerpt-1/ If you had this experience, would you still find God just "a historically and psychologically interesting phenomenon?" Understandably, this might not convince you, because you did not have this experience, so you have the right to be skeptical. The Gospels are accounts of these kinds of experiences, except even more tangible. Instead of a voice in the head of one individual, the communication channel was an entire human life, and events incompatible with our normal experience of reality. So, here are two potential reasons to believe in God. Either a direct, personal experience of God. Or the witness of others having this kind of experience, who you find credible. You seem to be saying that no testimony could possibly convince you, without observable, repeatable evidence. A few billion people have a different view of the matter, and I guess we just need to amiably agree to disagree.

joubert 17y ago
How is this different from other mental diseases?
Luc 17y ago
A few billion people have direct personal experience of God? I seriously doubt it's more than 0.1% of that, and I would class that a hallucination and some wishful thinking. I have direct personal experience of seeing the fabric of space and time, under the influence of weed, except I realized even while it was happening that it was all bollocks.
- 17y ago

physcab 17y ago

This is not entirely true. You are simplifying thousands of years of research, both experimentally and theoretically. The reason why there is so much debate is because most people have an uneasiness believing in something that isn't entirely proven. With that said, there is lots of scientific research going into proving atleast the historical presence of Jesus. See for example, The Shroud of Turin. Also, if you ever get the chance, take a tour of the catacombs in Rome beneath St. Peter's Basilica. This is sure to give you an appreciation for the vast tradition regarding religious beliefs. YOU may not believe any of this, but you have to agree that the shear number of people over the course of THOUSANDS of years atleast deems that it is worthy of investigating.

agrinshtein 17y ago

Just to put a little twist on this discussion. I never understood alternate theories of how the world came into being. I never understood the theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory. My logic has always led me to conclude that there must be a G-d. Disclaimer: What I have to say is so simple, that due to its simplicity people may tend to discredit it. As a group of Hackers though, I figure you will appreciate the simplicity. Realize that this topic is much simpler than Philosophers/Scientists like to make it. (If things were so simple philosophers would be out of a profession:-)) Disclaimer #2: These types of discussions are usually a waste of time because for some reason people have emotional attachments to either side. I figure that this is a group of intellectuals who may be able to divorce their emotional attachments from this discussion and talk about basic logic and sensibility. There is a basic logical axiom that everything we understand, everything that we can quantify, everything we can touch with the fingers of our hands or the 'fingers' of our minds must come from somewhere. Everyone agrees that the table that their computer is sitting on was put there by someone, was built by someone, or manufactured by something. Anything definable must have a source. Your table. Your computer. Your actions. Your feelings. Your thoughts. A tiny atom. Based on this axiom we ask ourselves the age old question, "What is the source of this world?" Generations have grappled with this question. People ponder this question. Solutions are offered. Evolution. The Big Bang Theory. So on and so forth. I don't understand them. Evolution. We evolved from something. Go back to the first thing. Whether it was an atom or a quark or anything else. Can you define it? If it is, than you still have the question, "How did that get there?!" Remember, anything definable falls under the axiom of needing a source. Where did that first thing come from? Big Bang. Same question. Where did all of the matter that came together to create the 'big bang' come from? There was matter? How did it get there? So we track back. We have a world. How did it get here? There must have been 'something', alright, we don't know what that something was but it was something. So where did that 'something' come from? Alright, so 'something' created that 'something' which created the world. Alright, well what created THAT 'something', you get the drift. However, here is the catch. You already don't know what that something is. You can't define that something. So now who says that 'something' is bound by the axiom of having to have had a source. Once you are dealing with a dimension beyond your comprehension you are no longer able to ascribe rules that applied in a dimension that you did comprehend! Rules that applied here, can not be applied there. G-d is that something. G-d created the world. 'Something' created the world. What is G-d? The moment I give any sort of definition I have left what S/He is. G-d isn't anything. G-d is everything and nothing - at the same time. You ask how that works? You can't ask that. You have just committed the same mistake that you were trying to avoid. Applying a set of logic to a dimension you have no conception of whatsoever. The question of where does G-d come from doesn't apply. The question of how can I say G-d is nothing and everything at the same time doesn't apply. This is just a tip of the iceberg. There is more to say but for the sake of this discussion I think that this is sufficient. (What I mean when I say that this is just the tip of the iceberg...in Judaism there is a very large study that discusses the inner workings of creation and it is a fascinating study. For example, Dan Benjamin - Hivelogic - recently put up a post about meditation. I found it interesting. In Chassidut/Kabbalah one of the faculties of the soul are the "Ruach" which literally means breath in Hebrew. It is one of the more external aspects of the soul. These concepts of breath and tuning into a deeper part of your psyche/soul than the standard drone of day to day life allow are basic basic concepts in Chassidic/Kabbalistic thought)