Religion & Fate

[bananaphallus]

Both religion and fate involve the belief that there are greater forces at work, that somehow our lives are meant to serve a higher purpose, and that in some ways, everything happens for a reason - do you believe this to be true? If you do ascribe to the idea of fate, religion, or both, does the fact that your life has been predetermined to some extent bother you?

*Preemptive invective: If you do (first question), would you be comfortable telling the mother of a stillborn baby that 'everything happens for a reason'?

Full disclosure: (If this somehow wasn't made apparent in the 'meat' of the post) I'm an atheist.

[transformers]

No, on the contrary I think many, many things happen that serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. Cosmic accidents. I think they're happening all the time, and are the end results of an infinite chain of cause-and-effect reactions. The universe is likely more random and unpredictable that any of us can even imagine.

[Agent Intellect]

Even if God has a purpose for us, what is Gods purpose? Simply bringing meaning up another level doesn't seem to make it any more satisfying.

[bananaphallus]

Even if God has a purpose for us, what is Gods purpose? Simply bringing meaning up another level doesn't seem to make it any more satisfying.

And wouldn't even the most capable of humans fall miles short of this 'creator' in terms of potential, power, intelligence, etc. (if the believers are to be believed)?

If I'm God - why bother? And why would I give a shit if you teach special needs kids?

Wouldn't even our most ambitious and courageous endeavors seem prosaic/quaint at best to this ethereal entity?

[Agent Intellect]

And wouldn't even the most capable of humans fall miles short of this 'creator' in terms of potential, power, intelligence, etc. (if the believers are to be believed)?

If I'm God - why bother? Does God really give a shit if you teach special needs kids? Wouldn't even our most ambitious and courageous endeavors seem prosaic/quaint at best to this ethereal entity?

Anytime people speak of a divine plan, it doesn't seem to take individuals into account so much as entire populations (or perhaps 'meta-organisms') - people are saved or healed to further God's nefarious schemes (whatever they may be) not because God deemed it necessary to break away from the format and do you a solid - if it didn't fit in with God's design, your prayers would have been answered with a resounding "no".

[Artifice Orisit]

One of the most terrifying thoughts I've ever had, is that god could be an author.
And we're characters in hir/its book.

Remember, there's never been a character who didn't deserve a happy ending, even villains have hopes & dreams, however twisted they may be.

e.g. Lex Luther is a fantastically stereotypical bad guy, but doesn't he have reasons for what he does, doesn’t he have ideals, heck the guy has the audacity and perseverance to challenge what's practically a demigod, doesn’t he deserve some happiness?

[bananaphallus]

Anytime people speak of a divine plan, it doesn't seem to take individuals into account so much as entire populations (or perhaps 'meta-organisms') - people are saved or healed to further God's nefarious schemes (whatever they may be) not because God deemed it necessary to break away from the format and do you a solid - if it didn't fit in with God's design, your prayers would have been answered with a resounding "no".

Wouldn't this, in a way, be a sort of eugenics?

Or, Fabian Socialism - George Bernard Shaw: "Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

[Anthile]

e.g. Lex Luther is a fantastically stereotypical bad guy, but doesn't he have reasons for what he does, doesn’t he have ideals, heck the guy has the audacity and perseverance to challenge what's practically a demigod, doesn’t he deserve some happiness?


Read the one-shot Red Son and you will be enlightened. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman:_Red_Son

[Da Blob]

I, personally, can not understand why someone would choose to live an existence without purpose, intentionality or intelligence. What a boring and small place the Universe is, if there are not any "higher forces at work"

If human beings are the pinnacle of creation then what a futile thing the Universe is.

I do not find it much of a stretch of imagination to live a universe where there is an Author of Order, an Architect of Structure, an Engineer of Life and an Artist that embodies Beauty.

What is the 'purpose' of such imagination, if one can't imagine that which might be "a greater intelligence' at work, or a better world, or a reason to keep on living...

To never ever ever get an answer to the question, "WHY?!" is a possibility that I detest with all my being...

[Vrecknidj]

Both religion and fate involve the belief that there are greater forces at work, that somehow our lives are meant to serve a higher purpose, and that in some ways, everything happens for a reason - do you believe this to be true?Dunno. I'm a big fan of free will. Then again, I don't find free will and causality to be incompatible. I find that a broad enough perspective allows for both quite comfortably.If you do ascribe to the idea of fate, religion, or both, does the fact that your life has been predetermined to some extent bother you?I don't know that it follows from the fact that I have religious beliefs that I believe my fate is predetermined. I don't quite see it that way. I accept axiomatically that my life is meaningful. I accept axiomatically that my will is (at least somewhat) free. I accept axiomatically that cause-and-effect relationships do hold. I also accept axiomatically that what appears to be the case rarely turns out also to be the case. So, I'm happy accepting that some form of physical-world worldview is too limited to encompass what I think is true.

*Preemptive invective: If you do (first question), would you be comfortable telling the mother of a stillborn baby that 'everything happens for a reason'?Sure. It doesn't follow that the reason is one we currently understand, appreciate or like.

Full disclosure: (If this somehow wasn't made apparent in the 'meat' of the post) I'm an atheist.Good to know, I guess. I don't have a problem with atheists generally. Though, frankly, I've known probably as many fanatic atheists as fanatic religiously minded folks.

:)

Dave

[bromines]

Religion exists because most people have to be forced into decency.
God created man in his image, and man returned the favor.

[warryer]

I have always said that things happen for a reason. I think that there is an over all goal at hand, how you interpret the external is entirely up to chance.

I am OK with predestination. I think once this becomes internalized the destruction of your ego can begin. Nothing is more self righteous than the belief that we are the pinnacle of evolution, or even that we are God's most prized children. The ego is a nasty little thing.

You have to wonder in terms of energy systems, why life exists. It seems like an awfully inefficient use of a energy which in all its vastness is still limited.

[Agent Intellect]

I, personally, can not understand why someone would choose to live an existence without purpose, intentionality or intelligence. What a boring and small place the Universe is, if there are not any "higher forces at work"

I disagree, I think the idea of a creator or "higher force" takes away from the natural wonder and majesty of the universe.

If human beings are the pinnacle of creation then what a futile thing the Universe is.

Who says we are the pinnacle of "creation"? Usually theists.

I do not find it much of a stretch of imagination to live a universe where there is an Author of Order, an Architect of Structure, an Engineer of Life and an Artist that embodies Beauty.

I can easily imagine a creator, as well - I think it's the easy way out, because it requires absolutely no explanation. That doesn't make it true, though.

What is the 'purpose' of such imagination, if one can't imagine that which might be "a greater intelligence' at work, or a better world, or a reason to keep on living...

Who says there is a purpose to a greater imagination? Even if there is a creator or higher power, how does that make an imagination any more purposeful? One could say that the 'purpose' of our greater imagination is that it has allowed human kind to progress as much as it has and learn so much about the cosmos - something I find much more wonderful in how unlikely it is to have gotten to this point without a "higher force" behind it.

To never ever ever get an answer to the question, "WHY?!" is a possibility that I detest with all my being...

And you assume that, if there is a God, that God will tell you why? Does God know why God exists?

Dunno. I'm a big fan of free will. Then again, I don't find free will and causality to be incompatible. I find that a broad enough perspective allows for both quite comfortably.I don't know that it follows from the fact that I have religious beliefs that I believe my fate is predetermined. I don't quite see it that way. I accept axiomatically that my life is meaningful. I accept axiomatically that my will is (at least somewhat) free. I accept axiomatically that cause-and-effect relationships do hold. I also accept axiomatically that what appears to be the case rarely turns out also to be the case. So, I'm happy accepting that some form of physical-world worldview is too limited to encompass what I think is true.

By axiomatically you mean there is no further basis for these beliefs?

I think, for the most part, life is pre-determined, simply because there is very little choice in what one does one second from now - even if we can choose, the choices are incredibly limited. And given that that second is predetermined by this second, the next second after that is more or less determined by the second before it, which was determined by the present, so on into both the past and future.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that, axiomatically I believe that in one second, there is very little that I can choose to do that will affect the next second, therefore I believe that, given any length of time, it can be reduced into a series of seconds with each one dependent on the previous second, therefore there is at least a soft determinism to life.

Religion exists because most people have to be forced into decency.
God created man in his image, and man returned the favor.

Do you really believe religion only exists because people required a God for morals? I'm an atheist, but that sounds like an incredibly oversimplified reason for religion to emerge.

[bromines]

Do you really believe religion only exists because people required a God for morals? I'm an atheist, but that sounds like an incredibly oversimplified reason for religion to emerge.

That is not why religion emerged. It is why it evolved into what it is, and why it still exists today in a large way. Humans are animals and without moral guidance act that way. Mostly.

[Da Blob]

I disagree, I think the idea of a creator or "higher force" takes away from the natural wonder and majesty of the universe.
I disagree, not surprisingly. First of all the word, natural, implies the existence of the 'un-natural', within the set of the un-natural is the set of the supernatural. If one is focused only on the natural, one does not perceive the Supernatural wonders of the universe or for that fact, that the majesty observed is just a tiny reflection of the Majestic Creator. Again I would suggest that those who discount the Creator are cheating themselves from an opportunity to witness the Supernatural in process, labeling everything in the universe, 'natural' - including the miracles of Beauty and Love.


Who says we are the pinnacle of "creation"? Usually theists.
LOL, that is so wrong, it is the atheists who state, with some confidence, that there are no greater entities in the universe than themselves "there are no gods"...



I can easily imagine a creator, as well - I think it's the easy way out, because it requires absolutely no explanation. That doesn't make it true, though.

It is the only way "out"...

Who says there is a purpose to a greater imagination? Even if there is a creator or higher power, how does that make an imagination any more purposeful? One could say that the 'purpose' of our greater imagination is that it has allowed human kind to progress as much as it has and learn so much about the cosmos - something I find much more wonderful in how unlikely it is to have gotten to this point without a "higher force" behind it.

Bah Humbug- unlikely? improbable? Why not impossible?
Have you been to the Library and seen the shelves of books where Physicists and Mathematicians have had to imagine unique and weird variations of 'standard' probability to make the impossible at least improbable? Of course, they agree this an ethical thing to do and validate each others efforts. Just because one can create a mathematical statement, does not mean that statement is not false...
Even now the odds for life evolving independently are in the order one in 10 to the millionth power - would one bet one's soul on the underdog given those odds?
EDIT: point being, is that if one is going to invest in a remote, improbable possibility, should not the possibility of Christ be considered a more rewarding option - a better gamble?
Romans 1:17-32 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man...


And you assume that, if there is a God, that God will tell you why? Does God know why God exists?
God is the only One with the answers, He could withhold revealing the Intentionalities for some reason.


I think, for the most part, life is pre-determined, simply because there is very little choice in what one does one second from now - even if we can choose, the choices are incredibly limited. And given that that second is predetermined by this second, the next second after that is more or less determined by the second before it, which was determined by the present, so on into both the past and future.

So, I suppose what I'm saying is that, axiomatically I believe that in one second, there is very little that I can choose to do that will affect the next second, therefore I believe that, given any length of time, it can be reduced into a series of seconds with each one dependent on the previous second, therefore there is at least a soft determinism to life.
This is a description of an individual who lives life by utilizing Habits - not thought. Thinking involves choosing options, exercising free will in the decision making process - even if the decision is to 'flip a coin' to determine which path is taken...

Originally Posted by bromines
Religion exists because most people have to be forced into decency.
God created man in his image, and man returned the favor.
Do you really believe religion only exists because people required a God for morals? I'm an atheist, but that sounds like an incredibly oversimplified reason for religion to emerge.
I basically agree with bromines comment. However, it could be stated thusly, God created Man in His Imagination and Man responded by creating a god in his own imagination. The utility of any man-made god is one of a social nature, to modify the 'natural' tendency to behave like a primate...

.

[Carnap]

And wouldn't even the most capable of humans fall miles short of this 'creator' in terms of potential, power, intelligence, etc. (if the believers are to be believed)?

If I'm God - why bother? And why would I give a shit if you teach special needs kids?

Wouldn't even our most ambitious and courageous endeavors seem prosaic/quaint at best to this ethereal entity?


I think it's sometimes humbling to take religion back down to a naturalist perspective. It's maybe not that God gives a shit that we teach special needs kids (but how could we really know) but that it's bloody wired in are fucking social brains to get pleasure out of interacting and helping people. Ever heard of dopamine, people?

It's like that French woman today yelling at me for feeding a stray cat. I will feed anything on this damned planet that I want.

I should not be posting in a grumpy mood, but hey.

[Agent Intellect]

I disagree, not surprisingly. First of all the word, natural, implies the existence of the 'un-natural', within the set of the un-natural is the set of the supernatural. If one is focused only on the natural, one does not perceive the Supernatural wonders of the universe or for that fact, that the majesty observed is just a tiny reflection of the Majestic Creator. Again I would suggest that those who discount the Creator are cheating themselves from an opportunity to witness the Supernatural in process, labeling everything in the universe, 'natural' - including the miracles of Beauty and Love.

Sounds to me like you're missing the silver lining trying to find Gold. Miracle is a very unsatisfying explanation to things that are probably far more interesting.

LOL, that is so wrong, it is the atheists who state, with some confidence, that there are no greater entities in the universe than themselves "there are no gods"... Well, I can't speak for atheists, but I can speak for myself - I have no idea what other "beings" there are out there, but I sure don't think of myself as being important or even great. I don't have to compare myself to entities that may or may not exist to know that I am dwarfed by the universe, not just in size but in wonder and grandeur - and yet I am also a part of it. Evolution tells me that humans are not the 'pinnacle' of existence, but merely another transitional part of an ever changing, never finished, complex dynamic system.

Theists, on the other hand, are usually the ones thinking they have some special place in the universe, that some all powerful being thinks they're the greatest creation in all of existence, and even that all of existence was created for the soul purpose of our being here; what hubris!



Bah Humbug- unlikely? improbable? Why not impossible?
Have you been to the Library and seen the shelves of books where Physicists and Mathematicians have had to imagine unique and weird variations of 'standard' probability to make the impossible at least improbable? Of course, they agree this an ethical thing to do and validate each others efforts. Just because one can create a mathematical statement, does not mean that statement is not false...
Even now the odds for life evolving independently are in the order one in 10 to the millionth power - would one bet one's soul on the underdog given those odds?

Yes, things are improbable, but it's only impossible when looking at it as something that's already happened. The past didn't happen all at once, it happened as a series of events in chronological order. One can name an entire line of events that could happen between now and one year from now, and the chances of each one happening in that exact order would be improbable to the point that one could consider it impossible - but if one looks at each single event, the probability raises substantially.

There will be a series of events that happen between now and one year from now, and each one of them is infinitesimally unlikely to happen, but one series of events will happen, and looking back on it in a year, one could do the math and come up with how incredibly unlikely it was that the year panned out the way it did, but it still happened that way.

The point is, there was an astronomical number of ways the universe - and life - could have evolved, but it's improbability can only be calculated in hindsight. It's like I said in an earlier thread, if you find a stone in the middle of the street, the chances that the stone would be right where it is instead of a centimeter away, or a meter away, or a kilometer away is incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't mean the stone can't be where it is.

And before you get going on randomness again, try learning about chemistry, the forces of nature, complex dynamic systems, and evolution.

EDIT: point being, is that if one is going to invest in a remote, improbable possibility, should not the possibility of Christ be considered a more rewarding option - a better gamble?With all of the different religions out there, what is the probability that the beliefs you adhere to are correct?

Romans 1:17-32 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man...Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off -- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

See, I can quote fiction, too.


God is the only One with the answers, He could withhold revealing the Intentionalities for some reason.If God is the only one with the answers, why would anyone believe that s/he'd reveal them to some little pissants like us?


This is a description of an individual who lives life by utilizing Habits - not thought. Thinking involves choosing options, exercising free will in the decision making process - even if the decision is to 'flip a coin' to determine which path is taken...Options can only be chosen given the options available. I'm not saying we don't have the ability to make a choice - one that may vary if the situation was played out more then once - merely that each moment, the decisions we are able to make and the choices we are given are determined by previous events. We can think ahead as to what we plan to do, but even thoughts, the plans we make, and the ability to execute them are determined by events that have brought us up to the present.


I basically agree with bromines comment. However, it could be stated thusly, God created Man in His Imagination and Man responded by creating a god in his own imagination. The utility of any man-made god is one of a social nature, to modify the 'natural' tendency to behave like a primate...I agree, there are probably a lot of people who adhere to certain beliefs simply for the moral reasons, or for the community, or any other social notions (including indoctrination) but I was under the impression that they were saying religion was invented for that purpose.

[warryer]

Sounds to me like you're missing the silver lining trying to find Gold. Miracle is a very unsatisfying explanation to things that are probably far more interesting.But what if that is the explanation? Isn't the fact that the universe exists a miracle in it's own right? One must be unbiased in the search for truth.


Yes, things are improbable, but it's only impossible when looking at it as something that's already happened. The past didn't happen all at once, it happened as a series of events in chronological order. One can name an entire line of events that could happen between now and one year from now, and the chances of each one happening in that exact order would be improbable to the point that one could consider it impossible - but if one looks at each single event, the probability raises substantially.

There will be a series of events that happen between now and one year from now, and each one of them is infinitesimally unlikely to happen, but one series of events will happen, and looking back on it in a year, one could do the math and come up with how incredibly unlikely it was that the year panned out the way it did, but it still happened that way.

The point is, there was an astronomical number of ways the universe - and life - could have evolved, but it's improbability can only be calculated in hindsight. It's like I said in an earlier thread, if you find a stone in the middle of the street, the chances that the stone would be right where it is instead of a centimeter away, or a meter away, or a kilometer away is incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't mean the stone can't be where it is.

And before you get going on randomness again, try learning about chemistry, the forces of nature, complex dynamic systems, and evolution.You are saying that the stone is in the place it is because of the culmination of all events preceding it. Couldn't we then say that with all things considered that we could then calculate every single next incident and then using those incidents to calculate the following ad infinitum? Which shows chance does not exist leaving us with predestination. This, of course, assumes we have an understanding of everything in this universe to perform such calculations.

This leads me to believe that probability is only the result of a lack of information.

With all of the different religions out there, what is the probability that the beliefs you adhere to are correct?Correct for whom? You stated it yourself. All things are the culmination of all things that preceded it so, he would be proceeding forward in the natural order.

If God is the only one with the answers, why would anyone believe that s/he'd reveal them to some little pissants like us?This assumes that God follows the same thought process that we are pissants.

If we assume God knows all the answers and God created the universe in terms of the materials pre-Big Bang. (It had to come from somewhere right?) Then all things could be pre-determined, as stated before. God would have to know everything that followed in terms of the universe. Each incidence would have been known before hand, each one having its own purpose. So in that sense none is higher than the next.

The other option would be that God is like us and doesn't have all the answers, yet is searching for them in a vastly more efficient way than we can.

Options can only be chosen given the options available. I'm not saying we don't have the ability to make a choice - one that may vary if the situation was played out more then once - merely that each moment, the decisions we are able to make and the choices we are given are determined by previous events. We can think ahead as to what we plan to do, but even thoughts, the plans we make, and the ability to execute them are determined by events that have brought us up to the present.On one hand you are saying that we can make a choice but, on the other hand you say our choices are limited by our past. Which is it?

[Da Blob]

Sounds to me like you're missing the silver lining trying to find Gold. Miracle is a very unsatisfying explanation to things that are probably far more interesting.

I think, the word, miracle, is probably inadequate. I would attribute the quality of miraculous to everything the hand of God has done, which includes virtually everything in the natural world that is admirable. Actually the birth of each human child can be seen as a 'miracle' if one chooses to... A Life enters this special chamber and travels through time, hundreds of millions of years in a mere 9 months and then that life leaves the chamber as a human being...

Well, I can't speak for atheists, but I can speak for myself - I have no idea what other "beings" there are out there, but I sure don't think of myself as being important or even great. I don't have to compare myself to entities that may or may not exist to know that I am dwarfed by the universe, not just in size but in wonder and grandeur - and yet I am also a part of it. Evolution tells me that humans are not the 'pinnacle' of existence, but merely another transitional part of an ever changing, never finished, complex dynamic system.

Hmmm actually from an engineering point of view we are the pinnacle of creation. We have the honor of housing the most complex, the most elaborate structure in the known universe, the three pound mass that is the human brain...

Theists, on the other hand, are usually the ones thinking they have some special place in the universe, that some all powerful being thinks they're the greatest creation in all of existence, and even that all of existence was created for the soul purpose of our being here; what hubris!

Not really, it is quite likely that intelligent lifeforms are exceedingly rare. Odds are we are the only intelligent species in this galaxy. It would make sense for intelligent species to be nurtured and sheltered in a special place by those who are capable of doing so...

[/COLOR]Yes, things are improbable, but it's only impossible when looking at it as something that's already happened. The past didn't happen all at once, it happened as a series of events in chronological order. One can name an entire line of events that could happen between now and one year from now, and the chances of each one happening in that exact order would be improbable to the point that one could consider it impossible - but if one looks at each single event, the probability raises substantially.

There will be a series of events that happen between now and one year from now, and each one of them is infinitesimally unlikely to happen, but one series of events will happen, and looking back on it in a year, one could do the math and come up with how incredibly unlikely it was that the year panned out the way it did, but it still happened that way.

The point is, there was an astronomical number of ways the universe - and life - could have evolved, but it's improbability can only be calculated in hindsight. It's like I said in an earlier thread, if you find a stone in the middle of the street, the chances that the stone would be right where it is instead of a centimeter away, or a meter away, or a kilometer away is incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't mean the stone can't be where it is.

And before you get going on randomness again, try learning about chemistry, the forces of nature, complex dynamic systems, and evolution.


Okay then by that standard all those who use probability in their determinations of the Big Bang theory were committing a very basic error. I can agree with this. It seems to be that science is the attempt to predict the future, not the past. The value of science is in the exploration of the future, based on the principles and observations made in the 'Here and Now". Science makes tomorrow a less threatening time 'To Be'. The probabilities of certain things happening tomorrow because of science is close to 100%. This is a relatively new facet of human development, knowing to a great extent that the science today will for the most part still be valid science tomorrow... There is a much greater probability that science can effect a change in the future than it can effect a change in the past...

BTW- I do happen to know about dynamic systems theory, it is one of the most fruitful advances in several different fields - including psychology. I do understand the science of genetics, however the science has little to do with the myth of evolution...


With all of the different religions out there, what is the probability that the beliefs you adhere to are correct?
That is a good question! The issue is the precision and accuracy deviations that could occur within the range of 'correctness'. Since I am correct, then the probability is 1.0, the question then becomes "what am I correct about and to what degree or confidence level?"


See, I can quote fiction, too.

Never doubted that, the point was about imagination

If God is the only one with the answers, why would anyone believe that s/he'd reveal them to some little pissants like us?
I do not know I see God as an Engineer looking for others who appreciate his work and may want to know details - it is not like it is going to cost Him anything to explain.

Options can only be chosen given the options available. I'm not saying we don't have the ability to make a choice - one that may vary if the situation was played out more then once - merely that each moment, the decisions we are able to make and the choices we are given are determined by previous events. We can think ahead as to what we plan to do, but even thoughts, the plans we make, and the ability to execute them are determined by events that have brought us up to the present.

Again, this is how some simple minded people think. However, intelligence involves, first noticing change in the environment and then formulating an adaptation to the new change, that has to be new in itself to be effective, and the options are all new options and the decision is a new decision...(?)

I agree, there are probably a lot of people who adhere to certain beliefs simply for the moral reasons, or for the community, or any other social notions (including indoctrination) but I was under the impression that they were saying religion was invented for that purpose.
Religion fulfills many purposes, maybe that is why every primitive society has a religion of some sort...
.

[bananaphallus]

My theory as to how religion evolves in 'primitive' societies:

[discussion between two tribesmen c. 2000 years ago]

Tribesmen 1: The harvest this year was less than stellar.

Tribesmen 2: You make a good point, why do you think that is?

Tribesmen 1: Well, in so many words, I think we're being punished by an ethereal entity for being human, we didn't deserve to have a good harvest.

Tribesmen 2: Hmm, that's interesting. Maybe, hear me out on this one, maybe we
project our own completely arbitrary and misguided social values on to this ethereal entity? We'll speak 'for him', people cannot question him, because he's always right, and they'll be left with no choice but to submit to us! We'll exploit the unfortunate quirks of human nature and become inebriated with power!

Tribesmen 1: Brilliant! We shall call it...well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But, in the future, when they fly in their jetcars and watch moving pictures, won't this seem a bit, I don't know, ridiculous?

Tribesmen 2: We'll be dead! What do we care!

Tribesmen 1: That's right!

(Both overcome with giddiness, can't stop laughing as they imagine the potentialities of their scheme)

[Agent Intellect]

But what if that is the explanation? Isn't the fact that the universe exists a miracle in it's own right? One must be unbiased in the search for truth.

Perhaps it is, but calling something a miracle and moving on is not explaining anything.

You are saying that the stone is in the place it is because of the culmination of all events preceding it. Couldn't we then say that with all things considered that we could then calculate every single next incident and then using those incidents to calculate the following ad infinitum? Which shows chance does not exist leaving us with predestination. This, of course, assumes we have an understanding of everything in this universe to perform such calculations.

Given enough information, yes, I believe (key word here - while I may use logic, I have nothing solid to back this belief up) that things could be calculated to within a certain degree. Quantum probability may throw a wrench in the gears, though.

That being said, I find it foolish when people think "if everything is predetermined, why not just give up trying since it's only going to happen one way?" - first of all, even if it is only going to happen one way, we have no idea what that way is going to be. Even though a television show was recorded months ago, we still watch it (and enjoy the ride), even though what's going to happen will always happen. Second of all, if we are predestined, then we are predestined to proceed being who we are - if that means giving up and wallowing in despair over the absurdity of existence, so be it. There is choice involved so far as we cannot perceive the consequences of the choices made. There is still a need for moral imperatives because our actions affect those around us.

This leads me to believe that probability is only the result of a lack of information.

On a certain scale, yes.

Correct for whom? You stated it yourself. All things are the culmination of all things that preceded it so, he would be proceeding forward in the natural order.

And perhaps he is, but just because something is the "natural order" does not make thoughts and beliefs rigidly set in stone - ones thoughts and beliefs are can still shift as time goes on. I'm not claiming that I'm going to turn him into an atheist, but even if what I say adds a new variable to someones thought process and allows even a slight shift in how they perceive their own conclusions or though processes, a change was made - even if that change was always going to happen.

This assumes that God follows the same thought process that we are pissants.

I assume nothing about God, which is why I consider myself agnostic instead of atheist. It was a question posed towards others assumption of full disclosure after we die.

If we assume God knows all the answers and God created the universe in terms of the materials pre-Big Bang. (It had to come from somewhere right?)

And God is the only reasonable explanation? Who created God then?

Anyway, sorry to cut this short, but I have to go to work - I'll see about responding to the rest of it (and to Blob) later tonight...

[Jennywocky]

*Preemptive invective: If you do (first question), would you be comfortable telling the mother of a stillborn baby that 'everything happens for a reason'?

Full disclosure: (If this somehow wasn't made apparent in the 'meat' of the post) I'm an atheist.

I come from the background of a Christian agnostic... I spent many many years in evangelical/conservative denom circles.

One of the reasons I finally accepted the shift in my thinking (to intellectually agnostic, which I was always was but kept trying to "have faith" anyway) is because of things like this.

You can choose to believe that God or some divine being has a "reason" for this sort of thing... but all of that is a choice. We really don't know any of that.

And so I think, unless the person in question firmly believes in a being or something that has a "purpose" for everything, then I think it is cold consolation and even offensive to go there, depending on their mood. After all, if there is a reason for your baby to die, it could trigger a pretty vehement feeling ("Who the hell is God to kill my baby just because it suits his reasons? What a heartless bastard!") rather than being supportive and encouraging. Face it, if a human being "killed" a baby to further his plans, we'd see him as a monster; but for some reason we find it palatable to believe in terms of God, without having any non-doctrinal/non-theoretical evidence otherwise. We are still free to believe it, but I think much care should be taken in tossing around "theological one-liners" when someone is suffering SO greatly and potentially reevaluating their faith.

I've also been turned off because I see the phrase used as a crutch, not as an affirmation, to avoid suffering. People can't accept the baby died, so they find it convenient to believe there was a "good reason" for it. That's nice, but please don't ever try that one on me, I won't respond well.

So I'm not comfortable using it.... because I don't genuinely believe it myself. I think things happen, but bad/evil things can still be redeemed or be productive.

What I do is simply tell them I love them, spend quiet time with them, and otherwise be a tangible support / emotional connection point with them in a time when they probably feel in danger of being washed away into despair or anger. I can't prove to them God loves them by quoting an "empty line," but I can show them *I* love them (and then maybe God or the Divine or whatever else too). I can be the hands and body of love to them, without ever speaking a word.

... sorry, I just stuck with the OP here. There has been more extensive theological/philosophical discussion which I will read at some point, but I'd rather just stick with the practical and experiential, since in the end what matters here (at least in regards with helping someone in this situation) is the personal.

[bananaphallus]

I think it's also worth considering the plight of the baby - never even afforded the luxury of being cognizant of it's own existence, let alone of any reason for anything. If we humans are ultimately here only to ensure the realization of the Divine plan, what contribution does a dead baby make?

[Da Blob]

Perhaps it is, but calling something a miracle and moving on is not explaining anything.

Truth, however, it is the subjective aesthetics of witnessing miracles that is the focus and not objective causality. I mean one can experience a beautiful sunset as a work of art or just see it as an interesting display of the diffusion of light...

There is choice involved so far as we cannot perceive the consequences of the choices made. There is still a need for moral imperatives because our actions affect those around us.

To tie into a previous comment -I disagree. I believe that the choices we make based on Science and logic do to a certain extent allow us to 'perceive' the consequences or the 'future' effects of the action or cause that we initiate due to our choice of options in a decision-making algorithm...
The problem with morality, as addressed on previous threads, is that morality involves the sacrifice of the individual's goals, to further the goals of the group. If this sacrifice is not made willingly, then there is left the prospect of having to 'impose' morality to allow the group to function in order to achieve the goals of the group. This is, partially, the reason that individualists, such as INTPians, find the religion (morality) of the group so unpalatable..


Concerning loss and misfortune. "It is all part of God's plan" is so not right. The causalities we incur are often the result of the Enemy's plan of destruction, promoting Chaos over Order. Anything that could weaken the faith of a Believer is where the attacks occur. God is not the only entity that has a plan...

To me, when counseling grieving people, I try to point out that the lost loved one actually belonged to God, not the bereft. He loved him or her first... We were privileged to share that person, and that love, with Him for a while here on Earth and most likely will share that person with Him again at the next level. Grief is often just the expression of self pity.

[Agent Intellect]

On one hand you are saying that we can make a choice but, on the other hand you say our choices are limited by our past. Which is it?

Choices are limited to just a few, but not narrowed to a single one. I have spent a good portion of my day at work rethinking my logic on determinism, and even though it's a rather boring and vastly overdone subject to talk about, I'll give a small explanation:

I would consider myself ultimately "agnostic" about the idea of determinism. On one hand, it seems logical, at least on a 'classical physics' level - we have F=ma and Fg=G(M*m)/r^2, all of the physical constants, which are very deterministic. Looking at a planet floating through outer space, one can predict it's trajectory to astonishing accuracy. When pushing an object, one can calculate how far it will go given the amount of force used. If one shines a light in a certain direction, we could calculate exactly where that light would be at any given time. When we drop an item, we can easily predict what will happen.

Each second of the day, I can predict with precision what will most likely happen in the next second. Knowing this, if given an entire series of seconds, each moment during that time span the next second could be easily (in most cases) determined by what's happening now. Even if foreplanning has been taken prior to such a moment, one cannot change a situation based off of mere force of will. Most of life is out of our control - from the laws of physics and our own nature we must obey, to the people we interact with - and we are not always in control of what situations we are put in.

We have had our genes given to us, without our choice. We have been brought up and instilled with values that were not of our choosing. Many of the actions we take and choices we make will coincide with our nature and our upbringing.

On the other hand, there is a lot that cannot be predetermined. There is the sensitivity to initial conditions - which are often times so sensitive that strange attractors arise even given two congruent initial conditions.

The universe works as a complex, non-linear system, with recursive cause-affect-cause etc. Different variables will affect other variables that then affect themselves - and the brain and DNA work the same way. The mind works recursively, it's own thoughts affecting it's own thoughts. DNA codes for it's own alterations. There are emergent properties that cannot be accounted for using simple linear determinism - ie, determinism is far too 'neat' for such a shoddily put together universe.

And while it doesn't prove free will, there is quantum probability. But, this proability happens within our own brains, blurring the threshold for action potentials within the brain; creating an environment with no well defined distinctions when thoughts can and can't occur, and to what degree. It's even possible that our brains can use quantum probability within it's own throught processes.

So, what's my stance of determinism? I don't know. It's not something that could ever be proven either way, and it really has very little affect over how we conduct our lives.



I think, the word, miracle, is probably inadequate. I would attribute the quality of miraculous to everything the hand of God has done, which includes virtually everything in the natural world that is admirable. Actually the birth of each human child can be seen as a 'miracle' if one chooses to... A Life enters this special chamber and travels through time, hundreds of millions of years in a mere 9 months and then that life leaves the chamber as a human being...When I think of miracles, I think of something unexplainable, something that was clearly a top-down affect. A fully developed human appearing out of nowhere is something I would consider a miracle.

By the standards mentioned here, though, then I would believe in 'miracles', simply meaning something as awe inspiring as a developing child, and a mind emerging out of nothing more then two haploid gametes.



Hmmm actually from an engineering point of view we are the pinnacle of creation. We have the honor of housing the most complex, the most elaborate structure in the known universe, the three pound mass that is the human brain...Complex by what standard? We don't have the largest genome (http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/02_01/Sizing_genomes.shtml), nor do we even have the most chromosomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms ). Having a large brain does not make us "better" then other animals in any general term, simply better at surviving within our niche, but even humans will succumb to natural selection once we overpopulate too much.



Not really, it is quite likely that intelligent lifeforms are exceedingly rare. Odds are we are the only intelligent species in this galaxy. It would make sense for intelligent species to be nurtured and sheltered in a special place by those who are capable of doing so...How do you come to the conclusion that it "makes sense" that an intelligent species should be nurtured in their own special place? You say that as if it's something obvious.


Okay then by that standard all those who use probability in their determinations of the Big Bang theory were committing a very basic error.What happened at the big bang is still not fully understood (anything before about 350,000 years after the initial expansion can only be determined by examining the microwave background radiation) and can only be calculated by degrees of probability. My point in the last post is that, even if things are determined by probabilistic conditions, that doesn't mean that any certain way that things could happen are impossible. Mathematically something may be highly improbable when everything is calculated together in hindsight, but each event happened temporally and cannot be calculated as one large event. This is not incompatible with current calculations about the initial expansion... and yes, I have my own doubts about the accuracy to which we can calculate what the universe was like before 350,000 years after the bang, but evidence leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that something happened back then and that as further analysis is made, current hypotheses are on the right track.

I can agree with this. It seems to be that science is the attempt to predict the future, not the past. The value of science is in the exploration of the future, based on the principles and observations made in the 'Here and Now".The interesting thing about our universe is that we can look out into it and see things that happened "there and then". Understanding the way gravity bends light, and how much attractive force it has, predictions can be made (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jan/Rubin-Dark-Matter.pdf) about the nature of the cosmos to incredible accuracy.

Science makes tomorrow a less threatening time 'To Be'. The probabilities of certain things happening tomorrow because of science is close to 100%. This is a relatively new facet of human development, knowing to a great extent that the science today will for the most part still be valid science tomorrow... There is a much greater probability that science can effect a change in the future than it can effect a change in the past...Studying the past is necessary for understanding how the cosmos and all of nature works.

BTW- I do happen to know about dynamic systems theory, it is one of the most fruitful advances in several different fields - including psychology. I do understand the science of genetics, however the science has little to do with the myth of evolution...Genetics and evolution are not exclusive sciences - if you claim to understand genetics and still consider evolution a myth, then you do not understand genetics.


That is a good question! The issue is the precision and accuracy deviations that could occur within the range of 'correctness'. Since I am correct, then the probability is 1.0, the question then becomes "what am I correct about and to what degree or confidence level?"So you begin with the assumption that you're correct, and go from there? That's brilliant! My point is, though, if you are truly attempting to hedge your bets, there are a lot of other Gods out there who would be very dissapointed if you didn't think they were real.


I do not know I see God as an Engineer looking for others who appreciate his work and may want to know details - it is not like it is going to cost Him anything to explain.Where have you stumbled upon your great insights and vast understanding of what God is like and what God is capable of doing? How can you be sure that your concept of God is the true one, and not simply the God you hope exists?


Religion fulfills many purposes, maybe that is why every primitive society has a religion of some sort...Strange thing is, there are a large number of religions that don't have any doctrines or beliefs that are similar to western religions - ie, no central figurehead type God, no benevolent creator, and often times not even an all powerful God.



Truth, however, it is the subjective aesthetics of witnessing miracles that is the focus and not objective causality. I mean one can experience a beautiful sunset as a work of art or just see it as an interesting display of the diffusion of light...I disagree, I think understanding how the phenomena works makes it all the more interesting and "miraculous". The unweaving of the rainbow makes it all the more beautiful.


Concerning loss and misfortune. "It is all part of God's plan" is so not right. The causalities we incur are often the result of the Enemy's plan of destruction, promoting Chaos over Order. Anything that could weaken the faith of a Believer is where the attacks occur. God is not the only entity that has a plan...

I've never understood, then, why God allows this 'enemy' to proceed with hir plans? Is God then not all powerful - is s/he forced to tolerate the whims of the 'enemy'?

[bananaphallus]

I've never understood, then, why God allows this 'enemy' to proceed with hir plans? Is God then not all powerful - is s/he forced to tolerate the whims of the 'enemy'?

This all seriously undermines the alleged omniscience/omnipotence of the Christian god, to think that another, comparably powerful entity could impose his will in any appreciable way. God created the cosmos, he wouldn't have created an opposing force (what need would there be for god to be self-critical?), it wouldn't be necessary, seeing as how he already knew everything, so would this mean this 'entity' predated god? It's the only way I can see this working...

[Da Blob]

So, what's my stance of determinism? I don't know. It's not something that could ever be proven either way, and it really has very little affect over how we conduct our lives.
People only think about problems. If there is no problem there is no thought, specifically, if there is no new problem there is no new thought. There could be a great deal written about how people try to avoid thought and in a backwards way, thereby avoid new problems. This tendency could be 'thought' of as being deterministic. However, there are any number of problem-solving methods that utilize 'brainstorming' as a means to create a range of options or choices. Choosing from that range is determined on a case by case basis. For a matter of fact, I think randomly choosing an option to begin a regime of trial-and-error can be one of the best decisions...


When I think of miracles, I think of something unexplainable, something that was clearly a top-down affect. A fully developed human appearing out of nowhere is something I would consider a miracle.

I think mere redundancy seems to devalue the experience some of the best miracles, "how can it be seen as a miracle if it happens often?" I still think a human infant is a miracle...

By the standards mentioned here, though, then I would believe in 'miracles', simply meaning something as awe inspiring as a developing child, and a mind emerging out of nothing more then two haploid gametes.
oops! lol, i should have read this next comment before writing my last one...


Complex by what standard?
A neurological standard...


How do you come to the conclusion that it "makes sense" that an intelligent species should be nurtured in their own special place? You say that as if it's something obvious.
alas, I may be anthromorphizing in the 'wrong' direction, but who wants to be alone in this universe?



[/COLOR][/COLOR]The interesting thing about our universe is that we can look out into it and see things that happened "there and then". Understanding the way gravity bends light, and how much attractive force it has, predictions can be made (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/Jan/Rubin-Dark-Matter.pdf) about the nature of the cosmos to incredible accuracy.

Again, I am not anti-science. I have no problem with the Big Bang Theory. Real scientists know that it is just a theory than can never be proven. My problem is with those others, who are using science like a cheap whore, to state that science has 'proven' that God does not exist....
However, at the same time the quality of observation of any past event is not really a scientific observation in that there is no variables that can be observed. There is no way to change the POV of the observer and no way of really 'dissecting' the past, it no longer exists except as a figment of imagination...

Studying the past is necessary for understanding how the cosmos and all of nature works.

No! studying the past can only imply how the cosmos 'worked' past tense - of course it is 'assumed' that it still works the way it used to, but can that assumption ever be proven? How could a new facet of reality ever be proven to differ from the past?


Genetics and evolution are not exclusive sciences - if you claim to understand genetics and still consider evolution a myth, then you do not understand genetics.


Bah Humbug! Genetics is a science - while evolution, as commonly portrayed, is merely an assumption without genetic material as proof...

So you begin with the assumption that you're correct, and go from there? That's brilliant! My point is, though, if you are truly attempting to hedge your bets, there are a lot of other Gods out there who would be very dissapointed if you didn't think they were real.
No, actually I thought that was a thought provoking idea you suggested "The probability of correct beliefs", but I got hung up on the definition of the word, correct. I should have worded it "Even if I was correct..."
As far as calculating the probability of correct beliefs, I actually think such a thing could be done - at least with certain beliefs.
Another question your statement provoked was "Well, how correct does one have to be concerning the qualities of an 'unknowable' God, after all, belief is a derivative of faith so what is the correct degree and accuracy and target of faith?"

Where have you stumbled upon your great insights and vast understanding of what God is like and what God is capable of doing? How can you be sure that your concept of God is the true one, and not simply the God you hope exists?
I have had a lot of experiences of a spiritual nature. I honestly can not state whether I have been dealing with God, Himself ( I hope not) or an angel of the lowest status. I do know that there is a 'dynamic system' in play and that thus far the Bible has been a reliable guide to the functioning of that system...(?)


Strange thing is, there are a large number of religions that don't have any doctrines or beliefs that are similar to western religions - ie, no central figurehead type God, no benevolent creator, and often times not even an all powerful God.
Yet they each serve an important social function. Problem is, is that 'real' religions serves a spiritual function primarily for the benefit of the individual and only secondarily benefits society at large... Kind of a twist on the usual mode of morality...


I disagree, I think understanding how the phenomena works makes it all the more interesting and "miraculous". The unweaving of the rainbow makes it all the more beautiful.
I can not disagree, perhaps, the most enlightening experiences involve a balance of the Objective and the Subjective, rather than just one or the other...



I've never understood, then, why God allows this 'enemy' to proceed with hir plans? Is God then not all powerful - is s/he forced to tolerate the whims of the 'enemy'?.

Satan is our enemy and our predator. He, she or it is not powerful enough to be a threat to God, only to individual humans. In the book of Job, God asks him, "Do you choose the prey for the lion?", Unfortunately,it seems as though predation is as much of a part of the human species environment as any other creature in the ecosystem of spirits. Predators are a type of a shepherd, that culls a species of individuals that are inadequate...

[Agent Intellect]

[QUOTE]People only think about problems. If there is no problem there is no thought, specifically, if there is no new problem there is no new thought. There could be a great deal written about how people try to avoid thought and in a backwards way, thereby avoid new problems. This tendency could be 'thought' of as being deterministic. However, there are any number of problem-solving methods that utilize 'brainstorming' as a means to create a range of options or choices. Choosing from that range is determined on a case by case basis. For a matter of fact, I think randomly choosing an option to begin a regime of trial-and-error can be one of the best decisions...

I don't think a belief in determinism is caused by a desire not to have to think. I think there are many logical reasons to believe that at least a large amount of existence is 'pre'determined (as in, determined by the events that preceded it - not to be confused with predestined), even if there are also plenty of reasons to think it is not. To me, it's rather like the theory of evolution - it's either true or it's not (and of course the vast amounts of evidence shows that it invariably is) but the conclusion doesn't have any earth shattering affects on how people live their lives - I still don't understand why determinism (and evolution) seem so threatening to people. I could probably come up with several reasons why if free will (and the TOE) were not true, how that could be threatening, but determinism seems to really strike a chord with a lot of people.


I think mere redundancy seems to devalue the experience some of the best miracles, "how can it be seen as a miracle if it happens often?" I still think a human infant is a miracle...


oops! lol, i should have read this next comment before writing my last one..

I'm simply saying that, having to evoke God or some higher power for every wonder or natural beauty in life cheapens the whole experience.

A neurological standard...

You mean it's not that we have a "soul"? Or does the soul emerge from our neurological complexity?

On the level of the cell, our brain is just as simple as any other vertebrae. It runs on the same chemical reactions, requiring the same sustenance. So is it the number of cells that makes something complex? By that standard, an sperm whale would be more complex than us.


alas, I may be anthromorphizing in the 'wrong' direction, but who wants to be alone in this universe?

Just because loneliness is unpalatable doesn't mean it's untrue.



Again, I am not anti-science. I have no problem with the Big Bang Theory. Real scientists know that it is just a theory than can never be proven. My problem is with those others, who are using science like a cheap whore, to state that science has 'proven' that God does not exist....

I agree, I do not think that science has or even can prove that God does not exist. Science may be able to explain things that people have claimed are top-down like miracles in which God has subverted hir own natural laws to make alterations, but that does not necessarily disprove God.

People who make the claim the the TOE or big bang theory "prove" that God does not exist may be 'following the evidence' to some degree, but they are not exerting any of their own mental effort. God is untestable and unfalsifiable, which puts God hirself out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy - even if God's supposed affects on our world (or, if you prefer, the way God has chosen to run the cosmos) are within the realm of science.

However, at the same time the quality of observation of any past event is not really a scientific observation in that there is no variables that can be observed. There is no way to change the POV of the observer and no way of really 'dissecting' the past, it no longer exists except as a figment of imagination...

When someone runs a scientific experiment, how do they record their data? They make observations
When someotne observes the cosmos, how do they record their data? They make observations.

In a way, I would say that studying the cosmos is an even more pure science, since we are not interfering with the results - we remove ourselves as a control variable. The universe itself is running all of the experiments for us. We can test a stars or nebula's or gas clouds spectroscopy without human interference, or the luminosity of a supernova, or the degrees of variation in the microwave background radiation, or the gravitational pull of unseen 'dark matter', without having to worry about some technician polluting the data.


No! studying the past can only imply how the cosmos 'worked' past tense - of course it is 'assumed' that it still works the way it used to, but can that assumption ever be proven? How could a new facet of reality ever be proven to differ from the past?

The fact that the universe works on a cause and affect basis means that studying the past is studying the causes of tomorrows affects. We can see the types of changes the cosmos have gone through and make predictions about future changes, we can better understand how things have come to be as they are, and we can see correlations and trends that give us more accurate predictions of the future along with better understanding of how things got to where they are. It's why they say that evolution is necessary to understand all of biology (yes, including genetics) because there is very little in biology that can be understood without evolution - which is an understanding of the past)


Bah Humbug! Genetics is a science - while evolution, as commonly portrayed, is merely an assumption without genetic material as proof...

Genetics is the material proof. The fossil record is only light material proof and is more useful for making maps, or phylogenic trees, that coincide with genetic and embryonic material evidence.

No, actually I thought that was a thought provoking idea you suggested "The probability of correct beliefs", but I got hung up on the definition of the word, correct. I should have worded it "Even if I was correct..."
As far as calculating the probability of correct beliefs, I actually think such a thing could be done - at least with certain beliefs.

How can you calculate anything with any accuracy if you don't know the variables and you don't know the other side of the equation?

Faith * Z^Culture + (It Feels Right) * X = Y?
Logic + N(Gods) + (Lack Of Evidence)


Where Y = any possible God


Another question your statement provoked was "Well, how correct does one have to be concerning the qualities of an 'unknowable' God, after all, belief is a derivative of faith so what is the correct degree and accuracy and target of faith?"

I will grant that there is room for a margin of error, since God does go to such great lengths to conceal hirself - the problem is, so much of the petty squabbling amongst different sects of the same religion is about those 'minor details'.


I have had a lot of experiences of a spiritual nature. I honestly can not state whether I have been dealing with God, Himself ( I hope not) or an angel of the lowest status. I do know that there is a 'dynamic system' in play and that thus far the Bible has been a reliable guide to the functioning of that system...(?)

Lots of people have experiences of a spiritual nature for other concepts of the same God (the Abrahamic God, the 'father' of Jesus), and many more have had spiritual experiences for Gods and spirits that have very little in common with your God.

Yet they each serve an important social function. Problem is, is that 'real' religions serves a spiritual function primarily for the benefit of the individual and only secondarily benefits society at large... Kind of a twist on the usual mode of morality...

This personal God doesn't sound very compatible with the God that supposedly massacres entire populations, kills babies and children that never even got to the developmental stage to know that God may or may not exist, and answers "No" to more prayers then s/he answers "yes" to. Whatever God is doing, it seems to be more population centered then individual centered.



Satan is our enemy and our predator. He, she or it is not powerful enough to be a threat to God, only to individual humans. In the book of Job, God asks him, "Do you choose the prey for the lion?", Unfortunately,it seems as though predation is as much of a part of the human species environment as any other creature in the ecosystem of spirits. Predators are a type of a shepherd, that culls a species of individuals that are inadequate...

Celestial natural selection - I like it!

I still don't understand why, if God supposedly loves us and can do anything, why God suffers the 'enemy'?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus

[Anthile]

I still don't understand why, if God supposedly loves us and can do anything, why God suffers the 'enemy'?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus


I thought about that too and I tried to think like god would think.

The moment zero: God is. How? No idea. Probably God is simply a being so enormous that it has entire universes instead of particles. Maybe there is a space beyond space where multiple universes were able to form something like a brain. Who knows? I don't. If God exists, it certainly is no bearded man on a throne who throws lightning down to earth. I always have to think of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen here. For him, all humans were basically drooling babies. What he knew was way beyond human comprehension.
Second, the omnipotence. I think the way how omnipotence would work is to be able to know and manipulate every string in the universe.
So if you are such a being and are omnipotent, what would you do? In the beginning you would probably fool around a bit to see what happens, to gain experience. But soon it would be boring since you would exactly know what happens, no matter what you do. What is left then? To create something that is outside of your own domain, that you cannot influence.
"And God Said, Let There Be Evolution..." [citation needed]


PS: That is not my world view, just a train wreck of thought.

[Agent Intellect]

I thought about that too and I tried to think like god would think.

The moment zero: God is. How? No idea. Probably God is simply a being so enormous that it has entire universes instead of particles. Maybe there is a space beyond space where multiple universes were able to form something like a brain. Who knows? I don't. If God exists, it certainly is no bearded man on a throne who throws lightning down to earth. I always have to think of Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen here. For him, all humans were basically drooling babies. What he knew was way beyond human comprehension.
Second, the omnipotence. I think the way how omnipotence would work is to be able to know and manipulate every string in the universe.
So if you are such a being and are omnipotent, what would you do? In the beginning you would probably fool around a bit to see what happens, to gain experience. But soon it would be boring since you would exactly know what happens, no matter what you do. What is left then? To create something that is outside of your own domain, that you cannot influence.
"And God Said, Let There Be Evolution..." [citation needed]

That has always seemed the most reasonable concept of God to me - the great experimentalist.

But, of course, I'm painfully aware of my own bias and that, having very little basis for my concept of God, that what I believe about the nature of God reflects my own mind more then Gods.

The only way I can judge the mind of God - if s/he exists - is by looking at hir creations.

[Da Blob]

Obviously, there can be no definitive answers provided to some of the issues brought up on this thread. The concepts of Religion, Fate, determinism, Pre-destination etc. There may be a time and place when such answers are provided. I might suggest that to a certain extent that the stream of temporal events, that we label reality, has no seams. That is to say to divide events arbitrarily into categories of being either Cause or Effect is an arbitrary way of analyzing existence. A variable is Cause or Effect simply because of a position in a temporal sequence(?) There well may be such a thing as reciprocal causality.

My criticism of astrophysics, or any 'science' focused on the past was that it seems that only the Effects are visible, the Causes of the Past have to remain a matter of speculation. True scientific experimentation in the Here and Now can change potential, suspected causes and introduce different independent variables into an experiment. We can not conduct experiments in the past...

Concerning Time. To simply label Time as a Universal constant the twin to Gravity may be a grave mistake. Yes, there is tremendous inertia and momentum provided by the past. The Past provides the patterns that we label reality. However, to state that the Past determines our Futures as individuals is not, IMO, a valid observation. The past can chain people, but there have been so many individuals who have broken the chains of tradition and adapted to 'new' realities, brand new patterns.

Concerning God. I freely admit that much of what I say about God, is perhaps speculation or a personal belief, but it difficult to think and write about such matters if one has to constantly insert disclaimers. However, a question,

"What would Cause God to have a moral code or a standard of ethics?"

The 'evil' in this world can be attributed to selfishness (pride, lust and greed) of individual humans who purchase personal pleasures at the expense of other individuals' pains. God is not the cause of this. As far as documented instances of God allowing death to occur... this is His right as our Creator. Our lives, no matter how short or miserable, are gifts. God owes us nothing. "Shall the Pot contend with the Potter?" That is a problem with some primitive religious POVs, some people think that God is indebted to those who obey, that somehow by being 'good' that they have earned a 'paycheck' from God...

I do not believe God is omnipotent in the traditional sense, I believe it is documented that He has given power and or delegated dominions to other entities in the universe that exercise that power as agents of change...

Concerning Beliefs. I think that it could be possible to test the probability of certain beliefs as being 'true' or not. No one holds an entire set of beliefs intact for any significant length of time. It may be an indication of intelligence how often a belief system is examined and modified to "Accommodate" new facts... One's beliefs are constantly being challenged, whether one acknowledges that aspect of reality or not. People tend to avoid thinking about established beliefs, if possible (in most cases), although some of us are seemingly compelled to think. We that think often, are a small minority of the human population.

BTW- concerning evolution, I was referring to the paucity of DNA from extinct species... Without the DNA as evidence, Evolution as commonly 'believed' in is mere speculation

[bananaphallus]

I don't mean to sound so patronizing, but I'm not sure any of God's actions/decisions have been 'documented', at least in the traditional sense...