I don't think you can just "exist". why do you exist? can you go back to the begining of everything and tell me it all just spontaneously generated itself, did the big bang explode from nothing? science logicaly lets us conclude that everything in the universe must have a reason for being there, its all cause and effect therefore, even if you don't acknowledge an inhernt will in that, its there and thats what God is in a purely philosophycal way.
Yes those elecrtochemical signals cause the effects of love, but actual love can't really be measured. How much do you love your mother, your father? can you even attempt to answer that?
Its easy to say "yeah its just a bunch of chemicals reacting in a certain way to make you feel something" but try telling that to someone who without hesitation would give their life for someone they love. You can't distance yourself from love and talk about how its just a human construct you yourslef must feel a certain love for at least one person in your life.
Im trying to say that its just a part of who we are, and it does have a scientific explaination with physical, and chemical causes, but the ultimate meaning of it is so much more than we can ever understand, just like the universe,just like God.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]I don't think you can just "exist". why do you exist? can you go back to the begining of everything and tell me it all just spontaneously generated itself, did the big bang explode from nothing? science logicaly lets us conclude that everything in the universe must have a reason for being there, its all cause and effect therefore, even if you don't acknowledge an inhernt will in that, its there and thats what God is in a purely philosophycal way.[/b][/quote]
I think this is the biggest point of contention between myself (not being able to speak for anyone else) and religion. I believe that there was no beginning, that things have simply always existed. The Big Bang was just a part of the whole Close Universe deal. If there was a beginning, then there would have to be a First Mover, as Aquinas put it, and therefore some greater intelligence. I don't know how to explain it or to make you understand, because you are confident in a set of beliefs that is adamantly against what I believe. Basically, our scientific knowledge is microscopic in comparison to the Truth, as best as we can tell. I was just reading an article about Dark Matter, for example. It turns out that Dark Matter is 10120 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times as energetic as we thought. IIRC, there is more energy in the tiny amounts of DE that we have observed, than in the rest of the previously known universe--billions of times over. It is believed that gravity is such a weak force (ie. a 1-inch magnet can stick to a metal ceiling, winning out against an entire planet's worth of gravity) because gravitons are the only particles in the universe capable of travelling into the fourth dimension, a dimension which exists as a circle inside of everything, which we have no hope of ever sensing or comprehending. Scientists have made arguments for Calabi-Yau manifolds, 6-dimensional shapes so twisted that you could throw a rock forward and hit yourself in the back. One of the largest problems with string theory is that the entirety is simply so massive, that no one person can totally understand it. Faced with such amazing possibilities, is it really that hard to believe that time is infinite, that we are alone, that everything exists only to exist? Perhaps I should stop using that phrase, come to think of it. It makes it still sound like there is a reason for existence, a purpose for this universe. It is my belief that we are here by complete chance, alone amidst the infinite parallel universes. There is no because, no why, no how.
Only [i]is[/i].
[quote][b]Yes those elecrtochemical signals cause the effects of love, but actual love can't really be measured. How much do you love your mother, your father? can you even attempt to answer that?
Its easy to say "yeah its just a bunch of chemicals reacting in a certain way to make you feel something" but try telling that to someone who without hesitation would give their life for someone they love. You can't distance yourself from love and talk about how its just a human construct you yourslef must feel a certain love for at least one person in your life.
Im trying to say that its just a part of who we are, and it does have a scientific explaination with physical, and chemical causes, but the ultimate meaning of it is so much more than we can ever understand, just like the universe,just like God. [/B][/quote]
This will probably be bit skippy, because I have so much to express, but here goes.
The fact that we do not understand existence does not mean there is a God. That means we are not yet a level where we have discovered how to understand such things. We have decoded certain messages to the brain, and made it possible for a monkey hooked up to a machine to move a mechanical hand merely by thinking about it, but that is relatively simple compared to Human concepts like love. Movement is a yes-or-no type question... you either move or you don't. There are varying speeds and directions in which you can move your arm, but that does not even begin to approach the complexity of love. This is because love isn't a yes-or-no thing. What we define as love could be again divided into dozens of different subcategories, for different feelings. You don't love your wife in the same way you love your kids, or your mother, or your father. Abstract things like that fall into the science of psychology. I can't measure how much I love my parents, because I don't understand how my brain works.
Yet this does not mean that God made me love. This means that through millions of years of evolution, Humans have evolved, and complicated themselves with abstract concepts like love and hate. I don't pretend to distance myself from such things, though I am not known for showing emotion very often. If we did not feel love, if we were the Aristotelian bird, we might be able to understand it better, because it would not be inground into our nature. Unfortunately, we are the frog, caught in the swamp. We cannot understand things, because we are a part of them, and they are a part of us.
The willingness with which one man will lay down his life for another, being the example you used, is what I, too, will use. In my view, such a thing is the product of the grand experiment called 'civilization.' Do animals give their lives to save others? In a sense. Many herds put the young and the sick near the middle, to protect them. Why? Because it is inground in their nature. Without the young, the herd will die out. Without the sick, the herd is diminished. Do they do this because they love one another? No. Herd beasts have not yet gained sentience on our level--they do not have anything beyond the most basic concept of civilization; that is, sticking together for mutual protection. Alongside a more complex idea of civilizaton, come more complex concepts of many things. Would a race so civilized as us have 'animal sex' with anyone they came across? No, and this is why love and marriage evolved. Essentially, as we became able to think and reason, we complicated everything. Not purposely, but because we could. Instead of eating because we were hungry, we became capable of eating because we liked it, because food was good. Greed evolved during this time. People became capable of owning more than they needed, of coveting their neighbors' things--one of those things being his wife, according to the Bible. Yet many people [i]do[/i]. Because love evolved alongside greed, at this time. Love is borne not only of the desire to keep a mate (to ensure the survival of your genes, the 'purpose' of all life), but of many incalculable things, formed over the centuries into what it is today.
Now, you ask, why would one man lay down his life for another? Because we are raised by people who already share these views. Whereas animals seek only to pass on their genes, Humans pass on their beliefs, to some extent. Religious parents tend to breed religious children, and scientists secular children. People talk of brainwashing as if it an evil thing, but what we do to our children is essentially brainwashing. We teach them to believe things the same as we do. We teach them to tie their shoes, to eat, to dance, to talk, and we teach them abstract concepts like love, hate, and greed. One man will give his life for another man, because from birth he is taught to love, to hate, to feel. Patriotism, love, all these Human inventions are what make a man do this.
I think the basic difference between you and I, is that I believe that the unknown is unknown because it is unknown. I believe that it could be known, could be scientifically explained, but that we just haven't gotten there yet. You believe that because we do not--and quite likely cannot--know and understand such a thing as love, it must have been made by a higher power.
In closing, a quote from the SciAm article on Parallel Universes:
[quote][b]The complaint about weirdness is aesthetic rather than scientific, and it really makes sense only in the Aristotelian worldview. Yet what did we expect? When we ask a profound question about the nature of reality, do we not expect an answer that sounds strange? Evolution provided us with intuition for the everyday physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, so whenever we venture beyond the everyday world, we should expect it to seem bizarre.[/b][/quote]
I would point out that you are making some large assumptions about what goes on in the mind of a beast of the field. Until we sit down and have a meaningful conversation with them directly, we are pretty blind about their motivations in the turest sense. We infer a lot from observation, but...
;)
I would also point out that animals are often known to not only lay down their lives (in the act of defense of) for other animals within their own species, but for humans too... This to me shows an incredible amount of sophistication in their mentality and relations.
Granted these situations usually involve a constant loving interaction with humans, but you can't discount their ability to communicate and share on emotional, and mental levels.
I have seen more intense love, devotion, and faithfulness from an animal than most humans, and it is not just becuase I have the food dish in my hands like clockwork.
I think we all too often minimize the capabilities of the creatures around us.
I mean, we can teach a Gorilla sign language, so that we can share basic communication and concepts, we can teach a parrot to not only to say words, but teach it to identify what that word represents such as object shape and color (symbolism), and respond in kind with basic sentence structure of English rules.
We need to rethink just how unique we are on the face of this planet, let alone within our universe.
Boy, you go away for 6-days, and look what happens...
Great posts everyone, with some highly enlightening and well thought out statements.
To add my $0.02 (US, 0.018 Euro):
the_exile, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I see a mistatement, at least as it applies to my viewpoints (as a believer in God)
[QUOTE][i]the_exile originally wrote:[/i]
You believe that because we do not--and quite likely cannot--know and understand such a thing as love, it must have been made by a higher power[/QUOTE]
I think the cause and effect is confused here. I do not believe in God because I am unable to understand things. Such a belief is where I think the polytheistic religions (thinking Greek and Roman parthenon type stuff) come from, using gods as literally "deux ex machina". Rather, I believe that the universe is [i]beyond[/i] human comprehension, because it was created by a being [i]outside[/i] of the universe. I believe man is highly creative and intelligent, but not infinitely.
[quote][i]JackN originally wrote:[/i]
We may talk about the beginning of the Universe that he created, but God exists, not existed, he just exists.
[/quote]
Jack, the Bible supports this view when Moses asks God what his name is, so that the Isrealites will follow him out of Egypt. God answers "Tell them that 'I AM that I AM' sent you". That was always easy for me to understand once I understood that God, as creator of time, is outside of time. In the_exile's words, God [i]is[/i]. The universe, was, is, and is going to be, but God [i]is[/i]. Therefore, being outside of the universe, God cannot be proven or disproven by rules or logic that apply to the universe.
To use an analogy from B5, Lennier stated that they thought God was like a light shone on a wall. You see the light on the wall, but that is not the source of the light, just the effect of it. I think that aspect is the truth that eastern religions pick up, that God is in his creation, but miss the point that creation is not God. I also think we try to analyze the reflected light, categorizing it every way we can, arguing about how the wall is emitting the light, when we need to turn around 180 degres and see where the light is actually coming from.
[QUOTE]I think the basic difference between you and I, is that I believe that the unknown is unknown because it is unknown. I believe that it could be known, could be scientifically explained, but that we just haven't gotten there yet. You believe that because we do not--and quite likely cannot--know and understand such a thing as love, it must have been made by a higher power.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that at all, because I beleive that all those things which you described so well about just how complicated and infinite everything is in existence are essentialy true. As I said before everything in nature can be explained by science, we are only limited in our ability to understand and comprehend the depths of the world around us, so as you said they seem unknown to us. The difference in our views of existence lies not in the explaination of things through science, but in how we see that explaination in relation to life and meaning. You see the infinite levels of the universe, the complex and intricate nature of chance and see just what it is on the surface. You make no judgements, no assesments of purpose, you just accept it as being there.
I see all that as a validation of my faith, not because I can't understand it and therefore it must be made by a higher will, but because it all adds up to you and me, to people. People with ideas, with hopes, with dreams, people that love and people that hate. We and all other life in the universe are testaments to a universe that is so infinite in its randomness it produces creatures that can think and feel independent from the very thing they are a part of, what looks like caos is will.
In the end though even if im wrong, if most of us are just delusional products of human society it won't matter.
It won't matter because as long as people believe in things like love, like freedom, like God they will never die and they will be just as real as you or me, if only existing in the collective hopes of humanity. That is what keeps us going, and that is what drove us to become the scientists, the poets, the dreamers that built all we hold dear on this Earth.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]I think we all too often minimize the capabilities of the creatures around us.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that's one way used to defend why human has the right to use and destroy nature.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Matter shmatter... everything is energy anyways, either organized into patterns, or as free agents...;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Like two sides of coin.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]PJH, science alone can never fufill our need for a greater purpose in life because essentialy it tells people that everything they are, all they care about means absolutely nothing.[/b][/quote]
Well, the_exile already answered to this very well, but I'll say a few things too.
I don't need religion and that kind of faith to have a meaning in my life. There are millions of other things in life than science and religion, which makes it worth living and enjoyable and gives it a meaning. Religious faith is IMO self-delusion and I don't need that, in fact I hate that. Sure I have my own kind of "faith" too. I have dreams and certain kind of beliefs, but not religous kind and they are all based on factual things.
[quote][b]Let me ask you something, do you believe in love? because that can never be proven either, it can never be weighed or measured tested or counted yet almost everyone on the planet has felt it at least from there parents if not a companion. So if we can't prove it exists, does that mean we should all just go around treating our family just like strangers, and just go have animal sex with everyone we meet? [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh... that's totally another thing. Love is a feeling, an emotion. And the term "love" itself is just an expression to describe those.
Btw, I found it quite funny to read you guys' writings about all that electrochemical stuff to describe love. That's explaining human physiology, not love. Sure emotions are a chemical thing in physiology, but I think you people shouldn't always think about things too deeply and complex way when you should just stick to simple laymans logic. ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]I think the cause and effect is confused here. I do not believe in God because I am unable to understand things. ........ Rather, I believe that the universe is [i]beyond[/i] human comprehension, because it was created by a being [i]outside[/i] of the universe.[/b][/quote]
But that's essentialy the same thing.
[quote][b]Jack, the Bible supports this view when Moses asks God what his name is, so that the Isrealites will follow him out of Egypt. God answers "Tell them that 'I AM that I AM' sent you". That was always easy for me to understand once I understood that God, as creator of time, is outside of time. In the_exile's words, God [i]is[/i]. The universe, was, is, and is going to be, but God [i]is[/i]. Therefore, being outside of the universe, God cannot be proven or disproven by rules or logic that apply to the universe.[/b][/quote]
It's so easy to explain it that way, because you don't have to proof anything. You don't have to show evidence. Actually you could explain ANYTHING that way without any evidence at all, but it wouldn't make sense, because it would all be your own imagination, nothing more.
Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. Facts are facts, theories are theories and fairy tails are fairy tails, no matter how nice and comfortable, no matter how logical it would be if it was some other way. You can always dream and hope and imagine, but don't make those reality to yourself, or others, if they don't have any real foundation.
[quote][b]....... when we need to turn around 180 degres and see where the light is actually coming from. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. To find out what actually creates the light, not just assuming what creates it. That's what the science Trying to prove and explain things by finding evidence. Finding and explaining the cause.
Maybe you are lucky in that you don't need those 'delusions' to give your life meaning, although simply stating that life has some meaning means you are just as delusional as me in that you can never prove something like that. We all delude ourselves, if we didn't life would have to consist of only cold reality where you simply grow up, find a mate, reproduce, and die. essentialy we do that anyway, but because of our human 'delusions' such as religion, or our own particular hopes and dreams it becomes so much more than what other animals go through in existence.
[QUOTE]Facts are facts, theories are theories and fairy tails are fairy tails, no matter how nice and comfortable, no matter how logical it would be if it was some other way. You can always dream and hope and imagine, but don't make those reality to yourself, or others, if they don't have any real foundation.[/QUOTE]
Its funny you say that because so many of those so called facts and theories are constantly changing and being rewritten as we become aware of more things in the universe. Therefore making those things your only reality presents you with the same problem you atribute to us. Reality is what you make it, doesn't matter if its science or religion no one can have a monopoly on the truth because its too far above what our understanding can reach. You have your faith and i have mine it all comes down to that.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]So Exile, where are you getting the references for your info on dark matter from? Just curious... ;);) [/B][/QUOTE]
Popular Science's newest issue (which makes the whole thing quite simple, and is annoyingly peristent in the 'translated into layman's terms at the expense of our own sanity' joke) and Scientific American's website mostly.
[quote][b]I would also point out that animals are often known to not only lay down their lives (in the act of defense of) for other animals within their own species, but for humans too... This to me shows an incredible amount of sophistication in their mentality and relations.[/b][/quote]
Many animals--dogs come to mind first--are trained by Humans to do such things. However, I don't really believe that they love. My cats are 'friendly', they rub against my legs all the time to get my attention... but only when they want something. The warmth of my lap, food, access to the outside world, etcetera. They would lay down on a rock if it was warmer than me. They are somewhat loyal and dependant because they have been domesticated, have learned where the food comes from, but they don't [i]love[/i] me. The same goes for dogs. Dogs will defend those who feed and house them because they have been domesticated, trained to do so. A wild dog will attack a man if it sees a threat to it's children, just as readily as another will defend that man against anything that threatens him.
Granted, I can't prove this, I can only speculate, but neither can you. That's the beauty of philosophy; all we can do is revel in the wonder and beauty of this existence, and try to answer our own 'why?'s. ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]Maybe you are lucky in that you don't need those 'delusions' to give your life meaning, although simply stating that life has some meaning means you are just as delusional as me in that you can never prove something like that. We all delude ourselves, if we didn't life would have to consist of only cold reality where you simply grow up, find a mate, reproduce, and die. essentialy we do that anyway, but because of our human 'delusions' such as religion, or our own particular hopes and dreams it becomes so much more than what other animals go through in existence.[/b][/quote]
Name one person you personally know who's made his dreams a reality. Now name one person you know who went to heaven. I don't mean someone who led a good life--I mean you [i]know[/i], no faith involved, that they went. You can't. That's the difference between the two types of 'delusions.' Secular people have hopes and dreams as well. Just because I believe we are without purpose in the larger sense, does not mean I don't believe I can create my own purpose. I believe that what I do will shape the rest of existence in profound yet unmeasurably small ways. By writing, I will change the viewpoints of my readers every so subtly, and they will ass that on to their children for generations and generations. If I have children, those children will affect the world physically and mentally simply be existing, and having opinions, conversations, and arguments. If I don't, I still change the world, by [i]not[/i] changing it. Unfortunately, I don't know where I'm going here. :p
One problem I've always had with arguments is that I see both sides of the argument too well. I don't believe in God, I've made it quite clear that there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind on that topic, yet I understand where you're coming from. I think that's part of the reason why I am not as forceful as PJH, though we share a lot of opinions. I do have faith in many things, I 'delude' myself quite often... just not on an issue so grand as Existence.
[quote][b]no one can have a monopoly on the truth[/B][/QUOTE]
Very good quote! If I weren't already cheating the 5-line signature restriction by using small text, I would add it. :)
You might claim that I am biased when refering to my own pets, but I see a profound ability to find ways to communicate their feelings and what not...
Including love. My dog doesn't howl or lick my face when I come home for the express purpose of being hungry, my wife has fed him during the day. He is glad to see me, he has the feeling of belonging, he expresses love in the way he has learned how.
We both have come to a mid-language so to speak that can express a lot of things. I have had to learn his ques as much as he has had to learn mine.
True... that in nature he would have grown up much different due to the requirements of the wild, but my point all along is that he and many other kinds of animals have the capacity.
I would also add that animals will often mourn the loss of their partners.
They may not be civilized by any of our definitions, but I don't think, feel, or believe that Humans have the corner on the market either.
To hijack this thread, divert it slightly and start a train of thought that will make most of the athiests on this board really, really uncomfortable :D
In the absence of the devine, the supernatural, a first mover, ectra.
Where do humans aquire rights from? where does any being aquire rights from?
I'm not sure I understand your question in the right sense, but I'd say rights come from a sense of morality, a sense of doing what's right towards other people, a sense of wanting to make sure everyone has it good here?
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
I'm with Curz. Rights come from humanity's sense of doing what's right for everyone, rather than just the individual or the species as a whole.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]I'm not sure I understand your question in the right sense, but I'd say rights come from a sense of morality, a sense of doing what's right towards other people, a sense of wanting to make sure everyone has it good here? [/B][/QUOTE]
where is this "humanities sense of doing right for everyone" where does it come from? where does this sense of moraility come from?
the problem is in the absence of a supernatural your looking at the fundamental underpinning for all moral systems to be arbitrarily created, by man, based upon his cultural traditions.
Not upon cultural traditions. A very simplified example: When I walk around on the street and someone's in my way, I don't just push him out of the way. I say "excuse me" or something similar. I'm polite because of consideration for others. That consideration can be said to come from "treat others the way you'd want yourself treated".
Where does this feeling of not wanting to see others get hurt or mistreated come from? Hard to say. Feel free to call it god's design. But I really can't tell you, because noone knows.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]the problem is in the absence of a supernatural your looking at the fundamental underpinning for all moral systems to be arbitrarily created, by man, based upon his cultural traditions. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I'm fine with that...It certainly sits better with me than the opposite claim that the only reason we're nice to eachother is by the grace of a greater being...
-Φ [subliminal]just...likes being nice to others[/subliminal]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I'm following your definition of existence. I can't prove gravity exists, except by example, yet I'm still bound by it, as was everything before Newton. Early Europeans couldn't prove the Americas existed, yet many civilizations rose and fell in the absence of that knowledge.
I can't prove God exists, though there is enough (in my opinion) circumstantial evidence that shows he does. You can't show that reality is a progression of quantum states, but in your opinion, there is enough circumstancial evidence to show that it is. Just because I don't know something, that doesn't mean its non-existent.
I think you're trying to say something other than what I'm reading, but I'm not seeing it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ooh, Quantum Physics and Schroedinger's Cat, is that what you mean? :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]I'm not sure I'm following your definition of existence. I can't prove gravity exists, except by example, yet I'm still bound by it, as was everything before Newton.[/b][/quote]
Eh?
Do you know what you just said? You basically said, that you can't prove it, except by proving it. Make up your mind will you. :D
[quote][b]I can't prove God exists, though there is enough (in my opinion) circumstantial evidence that shows he does.[/b][/quote]
That's not evidence you're talking about, that's an opinion, like you said yourself. There is no real evidence that god exists, because if there was we wouldn't be having this conversation. Opinions and evidence are two different things.
[quote][b]You can't show that reality is a progression of quantum states, but in your opinion, there is enough circumstancial evidence to show that it is.[/b][/quote]
Just when did I say that?
Again, opinions and evidence do not have anything to do with each other. You don't seem to fully understand this what I recon from your statements. It's not a matter of an opinion when something is proved. It's defineable and in fact, it IS defined and accepted globally by scientific community.
[quote][b]Just because I don't know something, that doesn't mean its non-existent.[/b][/quote]
You're correct in that, but I think you missed my point. This is actually pretty hard to explain, but let me try again.
If you don't know something, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't exist, but if you can't prove it, then it means that it doesn't exist, at least to you at the current moment of time. It might still become existent to you if you are able to prove it at some point later on, but until then you must regard it as non-existent. Anything else would be just a theory at best. Theory becomes a fact when it is proved by undeniable evidence. I hope you understand this, because unfortunately I don't know how to explain it any better.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]To hijack this thread, divert it slightly and start a train of thought that will make most of the athiests on this board really, really uncomfortable :D
In the absence of the devine, the supernatural, a first mover, ectra.
Where do humans aquire rights from? where does any being aquire rights from? [/B][/QUOTE]
I beg to differ, this question fits right with the idea of civilization. As things like love and hate begin to evolve, we get the idea that civilization should be 'civilized.' Uncivilized animals might tear one another apart for crossing over a piss-marked line, but Humans don't. We defend one another much as a herd might defend it's own, but we take it a bit further with our more complex brains, getting ideas like 'courtesy' and 'doing unto others.'
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]Maybe you are lucky in that you don't need those 'delusions' to give your life meaning, although simply stating that life has some meaning means you are just as delusional as me in that you can never prove something like that. We all delude ourselves, if we didn't life would have to consist of only cold reality where you simply grow up, find a mate, reproduce, and die. essentialy we do that anyway, but because of our human 'delusions' such as religion, or our own particular hopes and dreams it becomes so much more than what other animals go through in existence.[/b][/quote]
So you admit that religions are just a delusion? ;)
No, I'm not as delusional as you, to quote you. There is a difference between you and me. I'm saying that we give ourselves the meaning for our lives, but you (as far as I've understood) are saying that the meaning is given by some existing higher being called God.
[quote][b]Its funny you say that because so many of those so called facts and theories are constantly changing and being rewritten as we become aware of more things in the universe. Therefore making those things your only reality presents you with the same problem you atribute to us. Reality is what you make it, doesn't matter if its science or religion no one can have a monopoly on the truth because its too far above what our understanding can reach. You have your faith and i have mine it all comes down to that. [/B][/QUOTE]
What is possible and what is not never changes. Truth never changes. The truth about whether there is God or not is what it is. The Universe has the monopoly on truth. We learn to do new things which makes things possible for us which weren't possible for us before, but what is actually possible in the Universe in the end won't change because of that.
The topic was about the existence of God and the truth is, that you can't prove that there is a God, so why do you believe in one? Or do you just [b]want[/b] to believe that there is a God to make yourself feel better and to give you inner strength, or something like that? Or if you really have a real evidence that there is a God then show it to me, otherwise I don't believe you. And if you don't have evidence why do you believe in God's existence? You know it yourself as well as I do, that it's self-delusional if you can't prove it, but still keep it as a fact. At least you should, because that's what it is in that case.
Comments
Yes those elecrtochemical signals cause the effects of love, but actual love can't really be measured. How much do you love your mother, your father? can you even attempt to answer that?
Its easy to say "yeah its just a bunch of chemicals reacting in a certain way to make you feel something" but try telling that to someone who without hesitation would give their life for someone they love. You can't distance yourself from love and talk about how its just a human construct you yourslef must feel a certain love for at least one person in your life.
Im trying to say that its just a part of who we are, and it does have a scientific explaination with physical, and chemical causes, but the ultimate meaning of it is so much more than we can ever understand, just like the universe,just like God.
[B]I don't think you can just "exist". why do you exist? can you go back to the begining of everything and tell me it all just spontaneously generated itself, did the big bang explode from nothing? science logicaly lets us conclude that everything in the universe must have a reason for being there, its all cause and effect therefore, even if you don't acknowledge an inhernt will in that, its there and thats what God is in a purely philosophycal way.[/b][/quote]
I think this is the biggest point of contention between myself (not being able to speak for anyone else) and religion. I believe that there was no beginning, that things have simply always existed. The Big Bang was just a part of the whole Close Universe deal. If there was a beginning, then there would have to be a First Mover, as Aquinas put it, and therefore some greater intelligence. I don't know how to explain it or to make you understand, because you are confident in a set of beliefs that is adamantly against what I believe. Basically, our scientific knowledge is microscopic in comparison to the Truth, as best as we can tell. I was just reading an article about Dark Matter, for example. It turns out that Dark Matter is 10120 (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times as energetic as we thought. IIRC, there is more energy in the tiny amounts of DE that we have observed, than in the rest of the previously known universe--billions of times over. It is believed that gravity is such a weak force (ie. a 1-inch magnet can stick to a metal ceiling, winning out against an entire planet's worth of gravity) because gravitons are the only particles in the universe capable of travelling into the fourth dimension, a dimension which exists as a circle inside of everything, which we have no hope of ever sensing or comprehending. Scientists have made arguments for Calabi-Yau manifolds, 6-dimensional shapes so twisted that you could throw a rock forward and hit yourself in the back. One of the largest problems with string theory is that the entirety is simply so massive, that no one person can totally understand it. Faced with such amazing possibilities, is it really that hard to believe that time is infinite, that we are alone, that everything exists only to exist? Perhaps I should stop using that phrase, come to think of it. It makes it still sound like there is a reason for existence, a purpose for this universe. It is my belief that we are here by complete chance, alone amidst the infinite parallel universes. There is no because, no why, no how.
Only [i]is[/i].
[quote][b]Yes those elecrtochemical signals cause the effects of love, but actual love can't really be measured. How much do you love your mother, your father? can you even attempt to answer that?
Its easy to say "yeah its just a bunch of chemicals reacting in a certain way to make you feel something" but try telling that to someone who without hesitation would give their life for someone they love. You can't distance yourself from love and talk about how its just a human construct you yourslef must feel a certain love for at least one person in your life.
Im trying to say that its just a part of who we are, and it does have a scientific explaination with physical, and chemical causes, but the ultimate meaning of it is so much more than we can ever understand, just like the universe,just like God. [/B][/quote]
This will probably be bit skippy, because I have so much to express, but here goes.
The fact that we do not understand existence does not mean there is a God. That means we are not yet a level where we have discovered how to understand such things. We have decoded certain messages to the brain, and made it possible for a monkey hooked up to a machine to move a mechanical hand merely by thinking about it, but that is relatively simple compared to Human concepts like love. Movement is a yes-or-no type question... you either move or you don't. There are varying speeds and directions in which you can move your arm, but that does not even begin to approach the complexity of love. This is because love isn't a yes-or-no thing. What we define as love could be again divided into dozens of different subcategories, for different feelings. You don't love your wife in the same way you love your kids, or your mother, or your father. Abstract things like that fall into the science of psychology. I can't measure how much I love my parents, because I don't understand how my brain works.
Yet this does not mean that God made me love. This means that through millions of years of evolution, Humans have evolved, and complicated themselves with abstract concepts like love and hate. I don't pretend to distance myself from such things, though I am not known for showing emotion very often. If we did not feel love, if we were the Aristotelian bird, we might be able to understand it better, because it would not be inground into our nature. Unfortunately, we are the frog, caught in the swamp. We cannot understand things, because we are a part of them, and they are a part of us.
The willingness with which one man will lay down his life for another, being the example you used, is what I, too, will use. In my view, such a thing is the product of the grand experiment called 'civilization.' Do animals give their lives to save others? In a sense. Many herds put the young and the sick near the middle, to protect them. Why? Because it is inground in their nature. Without the young, the herd will die out. Without the sick, the herd is diminished. Do they do this because they love one another? No. Herd beasts have not yet gained sentience on our level--they do not have anything beyond the most basic concept of civilization; that is, sticking together for mutual protection. Alongside a more complex idea of civilizaton, come more complex concepts of many things. Would a race so civilized as us have 'animal sex' with anyone they came across? No, and this is why love and marriage evolved. Essentially, as we became able to think and reason, we complicated everything. Not purposely, but because we could. Instead of eating because we were hungry, we became capable of eating because we liked it, because food was good. Greed evolved during this time. People became capable of owning more than they needed, of coveting their neighbors' things--one of those things being his wife, according to the Bible. Yet many people [i]do[/i]. Because love evolved alongside greed, at this time. Love is borne not only of the desire to keep a mate (to ensure the survival of your genes, the 'purpose' of all life), but of many incalculable things, formed over the centuries into what it is today.
Now, you ask, why would one man lay down his life for another? Because we are raised by people who already share these views. Whereas animals seek only to pass on their genes, Humans pass on their beliefs, to some extent. Religious parents tend to breed religious children, and scientists secular children. People talk of brainwashing as if it an evil thing, but what we do to our children is essentially brainwashing. We teach them to believe things the same as we do. We teach them to tie their shoes, to eat, to dance, to talk, and we teach them abstract concepts like love, hate, and greed. One man will give his life for another man, because from birth he is taught to love, to hate, to feel. Patriotism, love, all these Human inventions are what make a man do this.
I think the basic difference between you and I, is that I believe that the unknown is unknown because it is unknown. I believe that it could be known, could be scientifically explained, but that we just haven't gotten there yet. You believe that because we do not--and quite likely cannot--know and understand such a thing as love, it must have been made by a higher power.
In closing, a quote from the SciAm article on Parallel Universes:
[quote][b]The complaint about weirdness is aesthetic rather than scientific, and it really makes sense only in the Aristotelian worldview. Yet what did we expect? When we ask a profound question about the nature of reality, do we not expect an answer that sounds strange? Evolution provided us with intuition for the everyday physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, so whenever we venture beyond the everyday world, we should expect it to seem bizarre.[/b][/quote]
I would point out that you are making some large assumptions about what goes on in the mind of a beast of the field. Until we sit down and have a meaningful conversation with them directly, we are pretty blind about their motivations in the turest sense. We infer a lot from observation, but...
;)
I would also point out that animals are often known to not only lay down their lives (in the act of defense of) for other animals within their own species, but for humans too... This to me shows an incredible amount of sophistication in their mentality and relations.
Granted these situations usually involve a constant loving interaction with humans, but you can't discount their ability to communicate and share on emotional, and mental levels.
I have seen more intense love, devotion, and faithfulness from an animal than most humans, and it is not just becuase I have the food dish in my hands like clockwork.
I think we all too often minimize the capabilities of the creatures around us.
I mean, we can teach a Gorilla sign language, so that we can share basic communication and concepts, we can teach a parrot to not only to say words, but teach it to identify what that word represents such as object shape and color (symbolism), and respond in kind with basic sentence structure of English rules.
We need to rethink just how unique we are on the face of this planet, let alone within our universe.
just my 2 cents of course...
Great posts everyone, with some highly enlightening and well thought out statements.
To add my $0.02 (US, 0.018 Euro):
the_exile, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I see a mistatement, at least as it applies to my viewpoints (as a believer in God)
[QUOTE][i]the_exile originally wrote:[/i]
You believe that because we do not--and quite likely cannot--know and understand such a thing as love, it must have been made by a higher power[/QUOTE]
I think the cause and effect is confused here. I do not believe in God because I am unable to understand things. Such a belief is where I think the polytheistic religions (thinking Greek and Roman parthenon type stuff) come from, using gods as literally "deux ex machina". Rather, I believe that the universe is [i]beyond[/i] human comprehension, because it was created by a being [i]outside[/i] of the universe. I believe man is highly creative and intelligent, but not infinitely.
[quote][i]JackN originally wrote:[/i]
We may talk about the beginning of the Universe that he created, but God exists, not existed, he just exists.
[/quote]
Jack, the Bible supports this view when Moses asks God what his name is, so that the Isrealites will follow him out of Egypt. God answers "Tell them that 'I AM that I AM' sent you". That was always easy for me to understand once I understood that God, as creator of time, is outside of time. In the_exile's words, God [i]is[/i]. The universe, was, is, and is going to be, but God [i]is[/i]. Therefore, being outside of the universe, God cannot be proven or disproven by rules or logic that apply to the universe.
To use an analogy from B5, Lennier stated that they thought God was like a light shone on a wall. You see the light on the wall, but that is not the source of the light, just the effect of it. I think that aspect is the truth that eastern religions pick up, that God is in his creation, but miss the point that creation is not God. I also think we try to analyze the reflected light, categorizing it every way we can, arguing about how the wall is emitting the light, when we need to turn around 180 degres and see where the light is actually coming from.
I don't think that at all, because I beleive that all those things which you described so well about just how complicated and infinite everything is in existence are essentialy true. As I said before everything in nature can be explained by science, we are only limited in our ability to understand and comprehend the depths of the world around us, so as you said they seem unknown to us. The difference in our views of existence lies not in the explaination of things through science, but in how we see that explaination in relation to life and meaning. You see the infinite levels of the universe, the complex and intricate nature of chance and see just what it is on the surface. You make no judgements, no assesments of purpose, you just accept it as being there.
I see all that as a validation of my faith, not because I can't understand it and therefore it must be made by a higher will, but because it all adds up to you and me, to people. People with ideas, with hopes, with dreams, people that love and people that hate. We and all other life in the universe are testaments to a universe that is so infinite in its randomness it produces creatures that can think and feel independent from the very thing they are a part of, what looks like caos is will.
In the end though even if im wrong, if most of us are just delusional products of human society it won't matter.
It won't matter because as long as people believe in things like love, like freedom, like God they will never die and they will be just as real as you or me, if only existing in the collective hopes of humanity. That is what keeps us going, and that is what drove us to become the scientists, the poets, the dreamers that built all we hold dear on this Earth.
:p
So Exile, where are you getting the references for your info on dark matter from? Just curious... ;)
In other news...
Matter shmatter... everything is energy anyways, either organized into patterns, or as free agents...
;)
[B]I think we all too often minimize the capabilities of the creatures around us.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that's one way used to defend why human has the right to use and destroy nature.
[B]Matter shmatter... everything is energy anyways, either organized into patterns, or as free agents...;) [/B][/QUOTE]
Like two sides of coin.
[B]PJH, science alone can never fufill our need for a greater purpose in life because essentialy it tells people that everything they are, all they care about means absolutely nothing.[/b][/quote]
Well, the_exile already answered to this very well, but I'll say a few things too.
I don't need religion and that kind of faith to have a meaning in my life. There are millions of other things in life than science and religion, which makes it worth living and enjoyable and gives it a meaning. Religious faith is IMO self-delusion and I don't need that, in fact I hate that. Sure I have my own kind of "faith" too. I have dreams and certain kind of beliefs, but not religous kind and they are all based on factual things.
[quote][b]Let me ask you something, do you believe in love? because that can never be proven either, it can never be weighed or measured tested or counted yet almost everyone on the planet has felt it at least from there parents if not a companion. So if we can't prove it exists, does that mean we should all just go around treating our family just like strangers, and just go have animal sex with everyone we meet? [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh... that's totally another thing. Love is a feeling, an emotion. And the term "love" itself is just an expression to describe those.
Btw, I found it quite funny to read you guys' writings about all that electrochemical stuff to describe love. That's explaining human physiology, not love. Sure emotions are a chemical thing in physiology, but I think you people shouldn't always think about things too deeply and complex way when you should just stick to simple laymans logic. ;)
- PJH
[B]I think the cause and effect is confused here. I do not believe in God because I am unable to understand things. ........ Rather, I believe that the universe is [i]beyond[/i] human comprehension, because it was created by a being [i]outside[/i] of the universe.[/b][/quote]
But that's essentialy the same thing.
[quote][b]Jack, the Bible supports this view when Moses asks God what his name is, so that the Isrealites will follow him out of Egypt. God answers "Tell them that 'I AM that I AM' sent you". That was always easy for me to understand once I understood that God, as creator of time, is outside of time. In the_exile's words, God [i]is[/i]. The universe, was, is, and is going to be, but God [i]is[/i]. Therefore, being outside of the universe, God cannot be proven or disproven by rules or logic that apply to the universe.[/b][/quote]
It's so easy to explain it that way, because you don't have to proof anything. You don't have to show evidence. Actually you could explain ANYTHING that way without any evidence at all, but it wouldn't make sense, because it would all be your own imagination, nothing more.
Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. Facts are facts, theories are theories and fairy tails are fairy tails, no matter how nice and comfortable, no matter how logical it would be if it was some other way. You can always dream and hope and imagine, but don't make those reality to yourself, or others, if they don't have any real foundation.
[quote][b]....... when we need to turn around 180 degres and see where the light is actually coming from. [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly. To find out what actually creates the light, not just assuming what creates it. That's what the science Trying to prove and explain things by finding evidence. Finding and explaining the cause.
- PJH
[QUOTE]Facts are facts, theories are theories and fairy tails are fairy tails, no matter how nice and comfortable, no matter how logical it would be if it was some other way. You can always dream and hope and imagine, but don't make those reality to yourself, or others, if they don't have any real foundation.[/QUOTE]
Its funny you say that because so many of those so called facts and theories are constantly changing and being rewritten as we become aware of more things in the universe. Therefore making those things your only reality presents you with the same problem you atribute to us. Reality is what you make it, doesn't matter if its science or religion no one can have a monopoly on the truth because its too far above what our understanding can reach. You have your faith and i have mine it all comes down to that.
[B]So Exile, where are you getting the references for your info on dark matter from? Just curious... ;);) [/B][/QUOTE]
Popular Science's newest issue (which makes the whole thing quite simple, and is annoyingly peristent in the 'translated into layman's terms at the expense of our own sanity' joke) and Scientific American's website mostly.
Many animals--dogs come to mind first--are trained by Humans to do such things. However, I don't really believe that they love. My cats are 'friendly', they rub against my legs all the time to get my attention... but only when they want something. The warmth of my lap, food, access to the outside world, etcetera. They would lay down on a rock if it was warmer than me. They are somewhat loyal and dependant because they have been domesticated, have learned where the food comes from, but they don't [i]love[/i] me. The same goes for dogs. Dogs will defend those who feed and house them because they have been domesticated, trained to do so. A wild dog will attack a man if it sees a threat to it's children, just as readily as another will defend that man against anything that threatens him.
Granted, I can't prove this, I can only speculate, but neither can you. That's the beauty of philosophy; all we can do is revel in the wonder and beauty of this existence, and try to answer our own 'why?'s. ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TheEXone [/i]
[B]Maybe you are lucky in that you don't need those 'delusions' to give your life meaning, although simply stating that life has some meaning means you are just as delusional as me in that you can never prove something like that. We all delude ourselves, if we didn't life would have to consist of only cold reality where you simply grow up, find a mate, reproduce, and die. essentialy we do that anyway, but because of our human 'delusions' such as religion, or our own particular hopes and dreams it becomes so much more than what other animals go through in existence.[/b][/quote]
Name one person you personally know who's made his dreams a reality. Now name one person you know who went to heaven. I don't mean someone who led a good life--I mean you [i]know[/i], no faith involved, that they went. You can't. That's the difference between the two types of 'delusions.' Secular people have hopes and dreams as well. Just because I believe we are without purpose in the larger sense, does not mean I don't believe I can create my own purpose. I believe that what I do will shape the rest of existence in profound yet unmeasurably small ways. By writing, I will change the viewpoints of my readers every so subtly, and they will ass that on to their children for generations and generations. If I have children, those children will affect the world physically and mentally simply be existing, and having opinions, conversations, and arguments. If I don't, I still change the world, by [i]not[/i] changing it. Unfortunately, I don't know where I'm going here. :p
One problem I've always had with arguments is that I see both sides of the argument too well. I don't believe in God, I've made it quite clear that there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind on that topic, yet I understand where you're coming from. I think that's part of the reason why I am not as forceful as PJH, though we share a lot of opinions. I do have faith in many things, I 'delude' myself quite often... just not on an issue so grand as Existence.
[quote][b]no one can have a monopoly on the truth[/B][/QUOTE]
Very good quote! If I weren't already cheating the 5-line signature restriction by using small text, I would add it. :)
You might claim that I am biased when refering to my own pets, but I see a profound ability to find ways to communicate their feelings and what not...
Including love. My dog doesn't howl or lick my face when I come home for the express purpose of being hungry, my wife has fed him during the day. He is glad to see me, he has the feeling of belonging, he expresses love in the way he has learned how.
We both have come to a mid-language so to speak that can express a lot of things. I have had to learn his ques as much as he has had to learn mine.
True... that in nature he would have grown up much different due to the requirements of the wild, but my point all along is that he and many other kinds of animals have the capacity.
I would also add that animals will often mourn the loss of their partners.
They may not be civilized by any of our definitions, but I don't think, feel, or believe that Humans have the corner on the market either.
;)
In the absence of the devine, the supernatural, a first mover, ectra.
Where do humans aquire rights from? where does any being aquire rights from?
[B]I'm not sure I understand your question in the right sense, but I'd say rights come from a sense of morality, a sense of doing what's right towards other people, a sense of wanting to make sure everyone has it good here? [/B][/QUOTE]
where is this "humanities sense of doing right for everyone" where does it come from? where does this sense of moraility come from?
the problem is in the absence of a supernatural your looking at the fundamental underpinning for all moral systems to be arbitrarily created, by man, based upon his cultural traditions.
Where does this feeling of not wanting to see others get hurt or mistreated come from? Hard to say. Feel free to call it god's design. But I really can't tell you, because noone knows.
[B]the problem is in the absence of a supernatural your looking at the fundamental underpinning for all moral systems to be arbitrarily created, by man, based upon his cultural traditions. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I'm fine with that...It certainly sits better with me than the opposite claim that the only reason we're nice to eachother is by the grace of a greater being...
-Φ [subliminal]just...likes being nice to others[/subliminal]
[B]Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I'm following your definition of existence. I can't prove gravity exists, except by example, yet I'm still bound by it, as was everything before Newton. Early Europeans couldn't prove the Americas existed, yet many civilizations rose and fell in the absence of that knowledge.
I can't prove God exists, though there is enough (in my opinion) circumstantial evidence that shows he does. You can't show that reality is a progression of quantum states, but in your opinion, there is enough circumstancial evidence to show that it is. Just because I don't know something, that doesn't mean its non-existent.
I think you're trying to say something other than what I'm reading, but I'm not seeing it.
:D
[B]Now the thing is, in all it's simplicity, that if we can't prove something to exist, then it does not exist, at least for us humans. When, if, we can prove something to exist, THEN it exists for us, not a second before. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ooh, Quantum Physics and Schroedinger's Cat, is that what you mean? :)
-Φ [subliminal]pets Schroedinger's cat[/subliminal]
:p
[B]I'm not sure I'm following your definition of existence. I can't prove gravity exists, except by example, yet I'm still bound by it, as was everything before Newton.[/b][/quote]
Eh?
Do you know what you just said? You basically said, that you can't prove it, except by proving it. Make up your mind will you. :D
[quote][b]I can't prove God exists, though there is enough (in my opinion) circumstantial evidence that shows he does.[/b][/quote]
That's not evidence you're talking about, that's an opinion, like you said yourself. There is no real evidence that god exists, because if there was we wouldn't be having this conversation. Opinions and evidence are two different things.
[quote][b]You can't show that reality is a progression of quantum states, but in your opinion, there is enough circumstancial evidence to show that it is.[/b][/quote]
Just when did I say that?
Again, opinions and evidence do not have anything to do with each other. You don't seem to fully understand this what I recon from your statements. It's not a matter of an opinion when something is proved. It's defineable and in fact, it IS defined and accepted globally by scientific community.
[quote][b]Just because I don't know something, that doesn't mean its non-existent.[/b][/quote]
You're correct in that, but I think you missed my point. This is actually pretty hard to explain, but let me try again.
If you don't know something, it doesn't mean that it wouldn't exist, but if you can't prove it, then it means that it doesn't exist, at least to you at the current moment of time. It might still become existent to you if you are able to prove it at some point later on, but until then you must regard it as non-existent. Anything else would be just a theory at best. Theory becomes a fact when it is proved by undeniable evidence. I hope you understand this, because unfortunately I don't know how to explain it any better.
- PJH
[B]To hijack this thread, divert it slightly and start a train of thought that will make most of the athiests on this board really, really uncomfortable :D
In the absence of the devine, the supernatural, a first mover, ectra.
Where do humans aquire rights from? where does any being aquire rights from? [/B][/QUOTE]
I beg to differ, this question fits right with the idea of civilization. As things like love and hate begin to evolve, we get the idea that civilization should be 'civilized.' Uncivilized animals might tear one another apart for crossing over a piss-marked line, but Humans don't. We defend one another much as a herd might defend it's own, but we take it a bit further with our more complex brains, getting ideas like 'courtesy' and 'doing unto others.'
[B]Maybe you are lucky in that you don't need those 'delusions' to give your life meaning, although simply stating that life has some meaning means you are just as delusional as me in that you can never prove something like that. We all delude ourselves, if we didn't life would have to consist of only cold reality where you simply grow up, find a mate, reproduce, and die. essentialy we do that anyway, but because of our human 'delusions' such as religion, or our own particular hopes and dreams it becomes so much more than what other animals go through in existence.[/b][/quote]
So you admit that religions are just a delusion? ;)
No, I'm not as delusional as you, to quote you. There is a difference between you and me. I'm saying that we give ourselves the meaning for our lives, but you (as far as I've understood) are saying that the meaning is given by some existing higher being called God.
[quote][b]Its funny you say that because so many of those so called facts and theories are constantly changing and being rewritten as we become aware of more things in the universe. Therefore making those things your only reality presents you with the same problem you atribute to us. Reality is what you make it, doesn't matter if its science or religion no one can have a monopoly on the truth because its too far above what our understanding can reach. You have your faith and i have mine it all comes down to that. [/B][/QUOTE]
What is possible and what is not never changes. Truth never changes. The truth about whether there is God or not is what it is. The Universe has the monopoly on truth. We learn to do new things which makes things possible for us which weren't possible for us before, but what is actually possible in the Universe in the end won't change because of that.
The topic was about the existence of God and the truth is, that you can't prove that there is a God, so why do you believe in one? Or do you just [b]want[/b] to believe that there is a God to make yourself feel better and to give you inner strength, or something like that? Or if you really have a real evidence that there is a God then show it to me, otherwise I don't believe you. And if you don't have evidence why do you believe in God's existence? You know it yourself as well as I do, that it's self-delusional if you can't prove it, but still keep it as a fact. At least you should, because that's what it is in that case.
- PJH