Does God exist?

[Overdog]

Wow - turn your back for 12 hours and see the chaos erupt at Hypo!

 

Wow is right, what a great post you just made.

 

Does God exist? Who knows. A lot of people believe in one or more Gods, or some kind of mysticism of one flavor or another. This state of affairs exists because of a highly evolved natural capacity to form a belief system without requiring any evidence. Just a story from mom and dad is all it takes to start a RELIGION.

 

We all take things on FAITH. All of us do. We could not function if we didn't.

Recognizing that, and looking back at the long road out of absolute ignorance we have travelled over the past 100,000 years, I conclude that ALL ideas that have not been examined and verfied by science are just stories. I choose to put my FAITH in ideas that have been verified by the science, because I can rationally justify it. I cannot rationally justify putting my faith in a god, I call rationally un-justified faith superstition.

 

1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

superstition - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

[Thunderbird]

This sounds exactly like what everyone has been telling you after each of your posts. Ah... the wonders of alignment. :shrug:

 

That meditation is not scientific? That is not what the post have been about. My contention was originally about Taoism, in its view of the world and how it aligns with QM. Lets not get confused here.:naughty: My contention was that it does. As for meditation being a scientific discipline, that's debatable and don't really care to take any side on that. As for meditation and its benefits, I think there is plenty of scientific evidence for that.

[Thunderbird]

DALAI LAMA

 

 

1989 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

Religious and political leader of the Tibetan people.

Excerpt from the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

"I pray for all of us, oppressor and friend, that together we succeed in building a better world through human understanding and love, and that in doing so we may reduce the pain and suffering of all sentient beings."

Favorite verse, from eighth century Buddhist saint Shantideva

For as long as space endures

And for as long as living beings remain,

Until then may I too abide

To dispel the misery of the world.

Oh yea Boesrseum, he sounds like a real prick. Do you think Nelson Mandella is also a great big cork sucker?

[Thunderbird]

The pope's, IMHO have have allways been real pricks however. I will give you that.

 

 

 

The following from The Power of Myth...

 

"The only myth that is going to be worth thinking about in the immediate future is the one that is talking about ... the planet and everybody in it and what it will have to deal with will be exactly what all the myths have dealt with- the maturation of the individual from dependency through adulthood through muturity and then to the exit; and then how to relate to this society and how to relate this society to the world of nature and the cosmos.", Joseph Campbell in an interview with Bill Moyers.

 

The Dali Lama writes...

 

Excerpt from the foreward to "Dharma Gaia", Parallax Press, Earth Day, 1990, "Our Mother, is telling us to behave. All around, signs of nature's limitations abound. Moreover, the environmental crises currently underway, involves all of humanity, making national bounderies of secondary importance.

 

It is important that we forgive the destruction of the past and recognize that it was produced in ignorance.

 

If we develope good and considerate qualities within our own minds, our activities will naturally cease to threaten the continued survival of life on Earth. By protecting the natural environment and working to forever halt the degradation of our planet we will also show respect for Earth's human descendents- our future generations- as well as for the natural right to life of all Earth's living things. If we care for nature, it can be rich, bountiful, and inexhaustibly sustainable."

 

What A dickhead!

[Pyrotex]

Quit with ad hominem attacks already. Jesus ****ing christ.

[POINT OF ORDER]

 

[it's GOOD to be the moderator!]

 

The so-called "ad hominem attack" is more than a mere insult or name-calling. It is the logical fallacy that says: a "bad" person cannot construct "good" logic; George is a "bad" person; therefore, George's logic is "bad" and his conclusion is "false".

 

So, if I tell InfiniteNow, "you are a stupid, unthinking, babbling wad of pondscum!" -- I have only insulted him. That is NOT an ad hominem attack.

 

However, if I tell ThunderBird, "your assumptions and conclusions have to be wrong, BECAUSE you are a stupid, unthinking, babbling wad of pondscum!" -- then that IS an ad hominem attack.

 

Inquiring minds want to know. :shrug:

 

[/POINT OF ORDER]

[Pyrotex]

[POINT OF ORDER]

 

Okay guys, it would appear that tempers have risen higher than is warranted. The use of vulgar language and vulgar insults is now officially, OUT OF HAND. InfiniteNow, Boerseun, ThunderBird---please cease and desist.

 

Perhaps you should all go read some excellent comics and cool down. Then come back to this debate after you've had a few good laughs.

 

[/POINT OF ORDER]

[Thunderbird]

[POINT OF ORDER]

 

Okay guys, it would appear that tempers have risen higher than is warranted. The use of vulgar language and vulgar insults is now officially, OUT OF HAND. InfiniteNow, Boerseun, ThunderBird---please cease and desist.

 

Perhaps you should all go read some excellent comics and cool down. Then come back to this debate after you've had a few good laughs.

 

[/POINT OF ORDER]

Okylydokley :shrug:

[Boerseun]

I think you've missed my point, ever so slightly...

 

...and no, I don't think Nelson Mandela is a "cocksucker", but I don't believe he's this angelic being that the entire world makes him out to be.

 

Matter of fact, if we have to carve him up on the totem pole of morality, I'd put him relatively low on that particular shrine.

 

<GASP!> Low? Boerseun! How could you!

 

Easy.

 

He called for armed resistance to the Apartheid system. Sounds fair, innit?

Yeah, right. Until you remember the small detail that "Armed Resistance" for them meant terrorist campaigns aimed solely at defenseless civilians. They blew up shoppers, mothers, old people on farms. Ask me - my dad was one of the casualties in their valiant campaign to emancipate their brethren. Big f***ing idol of morality, old Nelson Mandela is.

 

But Boerseun, how can you say that? That's not Nelson Mandela!

 

Exactly. Do you know Nelson Mandela? No. Do you know the Dalai Lama? No. You only know the image created by the worldwide press about them. The mere fact that you asked me if I thought Nelson Mandela was a "cocksucker", neatly proved my point, and illustrates the "Dalai Lama" effect very nicely. Thank you. Because the image is so pervasive, nobody can challenge it. Well, sorry sir. No holy cows here.

[Thunderbird]

Well, sorry sir. No holy cows here.

 

Holy, no, Humans better than you and I... probably so, and yes I did over state your position. Who would you say is a good example for people to emulate nowadays? Who do you admire ?

[Moontanman]

I think you've missed my point, ever so slightly...

 

...and no, I don't think Nelson Mandela is a "cocksucker", but I don't believe he's this angelic being that the entire world makes him out to be.

 

Matter of fact, if we have to carve him up on the totem pole of morality, I'd put him relatively low on that particular shrine.

 

<GASP!> Low? Boerseun! How could you!

 

Easy.

 

He called for armed resistance to the Apartheid system. Sounds fair, innit?

Yeah, right. Until you remember the small detail that "Armed Resistance" for them meant terrorist campaigns aimed solely at defenseless civilians. They blew up shoppers, mothers, old people on farms. Ask me - my dad was one of the casualties in their valiant campaign to emancipate their brethren. Big f***ing idol of morality, old Nelson Mandela is.

 

But Boerseun, how can you say that? That's not Nelson Mandela!

 

Exactly. Do you know Nelson Mandela? No. Do you know the Dalai Lama? No. You only know the image created by the worldwide press about them. The mere fact that you asked me if I thought Nelson Mandela was a "cocksucker", neatly proved my point, and illustrates the "Dalai Lama" effect very nicely. Thank you. Because the image is so pervasive, nobody can challenge it. Well, sorry sir. No holy cows here.

 

While I don't know either of them I can see your point, ones mans liberator is another mans invader. Almost anything depends on your point of view and whether or not you believe any end justifies the means. Some are better than others, Martin Luther King is idolized by some and reviled by others even though he campaigned for non violent change, his crusades still resulted in violence in some places. His change was needed badly and the result of his actions was on a whole good but not every one will ever be satisfied by the results. Whether or not the end justifies the means can only be judged by those who were there and lost/gained from the actions taken. Religion can be uased to do great good but it is always tainted by the human condition. so it shouldn't come as much aof a surprise that Terrible things are done in the name of god, even then there are going to be some that think these terrible things were justified. Humans as a group are crazy, the bigger the group the crazier they act.

[Thunderbird]

While I don't know either of them I can see your point, ones mans liberator is another mans invader. Almost anything depends on your point of view and whether or not you believe any end justifies the means. Some are better than others, Martin Luther King is idolized by some and reviled by others even though he campaigned for non violent change, his crusades still resulted in violence in some places. His change was needed badly and the result of his actions was on a whole good but not every one will ever be satisfied by the results. Whether or not the end justifies the means can only be judged by those who were there and lost/gained from the actions taken. Religion can be uased to do great good but it is always tainted by the human condition. so it shouldn't come as much aof a surprise that Terrible things are done in the name of god, even then there are going to be some that think these terrible things were justified. Humans as a group are crazy, the bigger the group the crazier they act.

How very Zen of you.

[InfiniteNow]

People invariably lose an argument when the opposing side somehow connects their arguments with Hitler. I mean, what do you say to that? Saying "You're arguing like Hitler" immediately sinks the opponent's argument, because the name Hitler carries such a negative payload that you can't crawl from under that allegation, however unjustified it might be. Someone actually described this effect and named it, but I'm damned if I can remember it.

 

 

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

[Moontanman]

And which science is it? Science which is paid for? Or science which isn't?

 

Again you are getting religion and God confused! God is not religion!

 

If you had paid attention to my post you would have noticed I didn't say that god and religion were necessarily one in the same Cathy:naughty: I just said there were many versions of all the things I noted. :)

 

What do you mean is it science that is paid for or science that is not? Are you insinuating that science is always influenced by money in some way? All I have to say about that is that all religion is bought by money in some way as are all versions of God. Which version of god to you believe in by the way?

[Racoon]

Does God Exist?

 

Only in your mind.

And if God exists in your mind, then God does exist.

 

:)

 

Until aliens show up on earth, or something major paranormal happens, its all he-says-she-says; I heard a whisper in my ear, god is here...

[nutronjon]

Science has not disproved Cicero's line of reasoning, can you?

 

What If the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness Was Relative? &laquo Publius’ Forum

 

Cicero uses reasoning similar to that of Aquinas as proof of why we exist.

 

“That which is always in motion is eternal. However, that which communicates motion to some other thing but is itself moved by some other force must necessarily cease to exist once this outside motion has ceased. Therefore, the only thing that never ceases to move is that which has the power to create motion on its own, for it can continue to move eternally because its power to achieve motion depends on itself alone. This is the source and the first principle of motion for all things that move. Being the first principle, it has no beginning. For since the first principle is the origin of everything else, it cannot have an origin itself. If it did originate from something else, we could not call it the first principle. And since it never had a beginning, it will never have an end. For if it did end, it could never be reborn from any other source and would no longer be capable of creating things, which is obviously what the first principle has to do. The source of all movement, then, is that which has set itself in motion and has no beginning or end. If it had beginning or end, one would have to imagine the entire heaven and every other created thing crashing down and ceasing to be, for that is what would happen if the force generating their motion were taken away.î [7]

 

Modern science has shown that, “Time came into existence with the universe itself.” [8] Modern sciences have shown that everything of this earth is made out of the same material created by stars. Science has not disproved Cicero’s line of reasoning, which continued…,

 

“Therefore, since it has been demonstrated that the self-moving principle is eternal, the same must be applied to the human soul. For unlike inanimate objects which can only be set in motion by some external force, the soul, in its very substance and nature, is an animate thing that, as such, derives its animation and motion from within itself. Since the soul possesses this characteristic of self-motion, we can only conclude that it, too, has no beginning and lives forever.” [9]

[InfiniteNow]

Science has not disproved Cicero's line of reasoning, can you?

 

<...>

 

Cicero uses reasoning similar to that of Aquinas as proof of why we exist.

Thomas Aquinas' argument was a posteriori, which translates into "based on experience." The pivotal piece, however, of an a posteriori argument is that it must be based on empirical evidence.

 

Argument from personal experience is not good enough in science, so your assertion fails. Anyone who has studied psychology knows why. Some people claim to have seen pink elephants, others purple unicorns, and others still have damaged brains and mistake their wife for hats.

 

Personal experience is not empirical evidence, and I'll gladly expand on this point if you struggle to understand what I'm getting at.

 

The argument from personal experience could be used to prove the existence of just about anything, precisely because it is so lose and non-replicable. For it to have any weight, it must be based on empircal evidence.

 

So, where was Aquinas' or Cicero's empirical evidence of the existence of god (of whatever form you choose to define it)?

 

HINT: They didn't have any. ;)

 

 

Logic can prove a great number of things, so logic itself does not need to be disproved. The fact of the matter is that a house of logic can be quickly demolished by showing the premises on which it is based to be false or nonrepresentative. Ergo, one needn't prove Cicero's logic (or, line of reasoning) false since he was working from premises which themselves were.

 

 

 

You have not yet proven my assertion that all unicorns are purple, despite the fact that others assert the existence of pink and white ones. You cannot prove my logic wrong unless you open your eyes to the fact that there is no such thing as unicorns, so the distinction is completely meaningless due to the silliness of my starting premise.

[nutronjon]

InfiniteNow is the following statement true or false?

 

That which is always in motion is eternal. However, that which communicates motion to some other thing but is itself moved by some other force must necessarily cease to exist once this outside motion has ceased.