What is the True Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
OK, then I rephrase my statement to encompass this earlier event. Abiotic processes producing organic molecules is the uncaused-cause. You get my point. Some event in the biology chain is the uncaused-cause. The argument still holds.[/quote]

But those abiotic process are then explained by geology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, and so on. In short, the matter and energy shaping the earth and it’s environment (including the above abiotic processes) have explanations/causes. [/quote]

Out of curiosity, is your education background in science? [/quote]

So far (attending). Why?
[/quote]

Do you agree with Santorum that Universities are indoctrination mills?

Are you attending a religious university?[/quote]

But he does not indict public schools at all?

Interesting.

202

[quote]ZEB wrote:
So you believe in God and that Jesus Christ is the son of God?[/quote]

Do you believe in almighty Odin, ruler of Asgard and his indomitable son, the god of thunder and lightning, Thor?

May Thor receive you, may Odin own you.

203

[quote]kamui wrote:

Maybe.
But that was not my point.

I was just saying that we all disbelieve in the existence of at least some Gods, with or without an expert knowledge of the related scriptures.
[/quote]

Well, it depends then. If you are referring to the ancients where their unexplained events were explained with the use of gods, then yes nobody believes that anymore. But all relgions, save for Buddhism, make the claim to worship the Creator or being. In that sense, all these relgions are worshiping the same thing. Buddhism is a bit confusing in that they claim not to bother with question, just being itself, but then some will claim a creative force which we would refer to this as God.
I do not know any religion that currently exists, that doesn’t have the ‘Creator’ God at it’s core. Perhaps there are some fringes, but I don’t know them. So with respect to any religions that worship ‘other gods’, if any still exist, that are not the Creator, then in that respect I am an atheist to them.
I am a theist first and a Christian second. I am not a Muslim Atheist, and a Christian Theist, or Hindu theist.

Theist must comes first. Again, religion is a means, not an end. If you treat your religion as an end, then you simply don’t know what the hell your talking about.

204

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I tend to agree with Dr Matt on many points. Although I am a computer scientist and not a physics/philosophy guy, I agree that Pat’s argument is invalid.

If Pat knows God exists because “logic must dictate so”, and Pat asserts that something cannot come from nothing, where did God come from? I would be blown away if someone could answer this in 3 sentences or less.
[/quote]
That’s a fallacious counter argument. By necessity of the argument itself the question is absurd. If God could be created, then God wouldn’t be God, that from which he came would be. I have already explained why this is so in pretty good detail. Look at the argument itself. The conclusion necessitates that God, or more correctly stated the ‘Uncaused-cause’ not be caused. That’s because the premises that lead to that conclusion demand that to be true. So you cannot say ‘what caused the Uncaused-cause’ by definition, it’s uncaused.
Second, the converse to that conclusion is both logically impossible and far more absurd than and the existence of an uncaused being.

[quote]
Our counter claim is not valid because we do not prove your argument wrong. Your counter claim is equally invalid because you cannot prove our argument wrong. Neither of us can prove our arguments right. Therefore, I am right.

Right?[/quote]
Wrong.
You have to prove the argument wrong to make a counter claim. Proving it wrong is absolutely necessary. It’s either wrong or right. You cannot skirt the issue. There is plenty of information about it. You cannot simply dismiss it. God existing or not existing is key to this whole train of thought and discussion.
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit.

205

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Sounds like you don’t like philosophy because it challenges your preconceived notions. And that’s precisely why I love it so… [/quote]

What “preconceived notions” of mine have been challenged? I don’t remember that happening. In fact, I am one of the few people in this thread with the ability to say that I don’t know and that there are several possibilities that are just as likely so we can at best say that We can’t be sure.

[quote]
Now as to your challenges…
Infinite possibilities on how it came to be… Maybe, but all those possibilties still share teh same two common problems, they are all caused and are all rooted in something that is not caused? [/quote]

Exactly. Which means that at best we have a bunch of possibilities that potentially solve the problem and no way to tell which one is correct because they all make the same assumptions and result in the same problems. Theists generally have one more issue that they themselves have added, which is that there is no reason why this “uncaused cause” has to be sentient, still around, and would for some reason care about and interact with humans. It is also possible that we do not even fully understand the problem and all possible solutions. There are limits to human knowledge and understanding

[quote]
How do I know, becuase logic dictate it must be so. There is no way around that problem . It’s easy to say, “You don’t know, it could be a million different ways.” But that statement doesn’t address the issue at hand. In other words it’s logical fallacy known as a Red Herring. I.E. it’s a diversion technique that is designed to avoid the problem rather than solve it.
Therefore, the reason this counter claim is not valid is because it does not prove the argument wrong. For you to claim there are millions of other possibilities you have to show how this argument is not the possibility. Because if this argument is true, then there are no other possible ways. So you can introduce other possible ways, when you prove this argument is wrong. You have no choice, you have to this first, because all I have to do for every counter claim is to prove it’s caused, which will not be hard. [/quote]

What? Seriously, what? In order for your scenario to be true, there can be no other explanations that solve the problem just as well. If even one scenario exists that explains the issue just as well as yours (i.e. relies on the same assumptions and produces the same issues) then at best you can say “I don’t know, it could be either one of those”

If ‘god’ exists, which is the basic premise of all deistic religions, then it is something. Saying “he/she/it just is and always has been because he/she/it has to for my argument to be true” is the exact same thing as saying that something came from nothing, since he had no cause. That is the same problem you yourself attributed to atheists. If god can exist just because your argument requires him to be, then any other argument that also requires something to be “just because” is just as valid until actual evidence comes about to show which argument is correct.[/quote]

this is going to take me a little bit, but my response is coming. I wish to do your counter claims due justice.

206

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit[/quote]

In which war have you been in active combat?[/quote]

This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
[/quote]
It is relevant because you said it was bullshit. That leads one to believe you have seen active combat and remained atheist through out. Otherwise, how would you know? I know people who have seen real actual combat, and none of them nor do they know of anybody in that situation that is atheist. Now, maybe there are, I don’t actually know, but the evidence is scant.

[quote]
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?[/quote]

Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem, and I have plenty of discussing going on. But if you drop other asshat one liners I may drive by again.

207

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.

[/quote]

In before pat :stuck_out_tongue:

Being “above time” does not make them “above causality”. It only makes them “outside the chronology”, so to speak. [/quote]

Being above time exempts them from requiring a beginning. [/quote]

Time is not relevant to causation. The core of causation is that causes necessitate their effects. Whether that happens in temporal order or not doesn’t matter.

208

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

If I said Harry Potter was historical fact, would you have to read all the Harry Potters before you can dismiss this claim?[/quote]

Not relevant. If I spent most my time critiquing the Harry Potter History Group, wouldn’t you expect me to be familiar with the Harry Potter books and what the Harry Potter History Group believes?[/quote]

An intelligent person could conclude that Harry Potter is bunk after one chapter.

[/quote]

I have read all 7. They are not bunk. To get me to read and like fiction is a feat in itself. I commend JK Rowling in some amazing authorship.

209

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Sounds like you don’t like philosophy because it challenges your preconceived notions. And that’s precisely why I love it so… [/quote]

What “preconceived notions” of mine have been challenged? I don’t remember that happening. In fact, I am one of the few people in this thread with the ability to say that I don’t know and that there are several possibilities that are just as likely so we can at best say that We can’t be sure.
[/quote]
Okay, if you say so. It’s easy to say ‘We can’t be sure’ but that doesn’t really get us anywhere. If one is satisfied with that answer then this isn’t the right discussion for such a person. This discussion requires that these questions are dealt with.

[quote]

No, my point here was to simply illustrate that however infinite possibilities you can postulate, they still have causality at their core. In other words, there are millions of ways of avoiding the question, but in the end you still have to deal with it.
You cannot start introducing all kinds of other possibilities, when you have a true deductive argument in your way. It’s a rather large bump to get over. To introduce other possibilities you have to prove this one is not a reality or, the other possibility must have that built in.

[quote]

Then you don’t understand the argument. It’s not a ‘scenario’, it’s an argument. The argument has premises which are true, and a conclusion derived from it which is also true. Therefore, before introducing other ‘possibilities’, you have to prove the argument wrong.

If there is another possibility, what is it? You said there are millions, give me one

[quote]

If ‘god’ exists, which is the basic premise of all deistic religions, then it is something. Saying “he/she/it just is and always has been because he/she/it has to for my argument to be true” is the exact same thing as saying that something came from nothing, since he had no cause. That is the same problem you yourself attributed to atheists. If god can exist just because your argument requires him to be, then any other argument that also requires something to be “just because” is just as valid until actual evidence comes about to show which argument is correct.[/quote]

This is not ‘religious’ argument it’s a philosophical one. The argument doesn’t claim the Uncuased-cause came from nothing. If you understand what it’s saying, then it’s saying, there is no such thing as ‘nothing’ and there never was a point in which there was nothing. It’s not a problem, I just don’t think you’re totally getting it.
Nothing doesn’t exist, never has existed and cannot exist. It never has and never will. For anything to be the first must have been. The alternative is both logically impossible and far more absurd.

If something uncaused, did not beget existence, then how did existence come to be?

210

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

Well, darnit. We’ll just have to look harder for the reason God doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

That’s correct M-Theory and other various forms of string theory does not even begin to remove God, or an Uncaused-cause out of the equation. First an foremost, aside from the fact that it’s a “theory” it doesn’t actually question “what caused the universe”. It’s trying to sort of attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Or basically, look beyond what current QM and GR is able to tell us about everything. It’s trying to be a theory of everything.
But even for the sake of argument, you say its 100% true, it does absolutely nothing to the greater cosmological question, how’d it get there? The ‘strings’ it refers to is just a ‘frequency’ or vibration of a said ‘singularity’. Nobody knows what this singularity is of course as it’s thought to be a 1-dimensional something. But it doesn’t really matter what it is because the same problems apply? Where’d it come from, how’d it get there, what’s it’s make up, what rules does it follow and why?
All of these are still causal relationships. All of them are somethings in need of a reason for their existence since they are caused entities.
To be a cosmological solution they have to be preceded by nothing and not beholden to the rules that they clearly follow. For that show it’s has dependencies, dependencies show that it cannot exist on it’s own, and with out being able to exist on it’s own, it cannot be the solution. It’s just another peg in the causal chain and nothing more.

211

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

If I said Harry Potter was historical fact, would you have to read all the Harry Potters before you can dismiss this claim?[/quote]

Not relevant. If I spent most my time critiquing the Harry Potter History Group, wouldn’t you expect me to be familiar with the Harry Potter books and what the Harry Potter History Group believes?[/quote]

An intelligent person could conclude that Harry Potter is bunk after one chapter.

[/quote]

I have read all 7. They are not bunk. To get me to read and like fiction is a feat in itself. I commend JK Rowling in some amazing authorship.
[/quote]

Bunk as in absurd when one tries to pass it off as true. You already knew that, though.

212

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

Well, darnit. We’ll just have to look harder for the reason God doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

That’s correct M-Theory and other various forms of string theory does not even begin to remove God, or an Uncaused-cause out of the equation. First an foremost, aside from the fact that it’s a “theory” it doesn’t actually question “what caused the universe”. It’s trying to sort of attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Or basically, look beyond what current QM and GR is able to tell us about everything. It’s trying to be a theory of everything.
But even for the sake of argument, you say its 100% true, it does absolutely nothing to the greater cosmological question, how’d it get there? The ‘strings’ it refers to is just a ‘frequency’ or vibration of a said ‘singularity’. Nobody knows what this singularity is of course as it’s thought to be a 1-dimensional something. But it doesn’t really matter what it is because the same problems apply? Where’d it come from, how’d it get there, what’s it’s make up, what rules does it follow and why?
All of these are still causal relationships. All of them are somethings in need of a reason for their existence since they are caused entities.
To be a cosmological solution they have to be preceded by nothing and not beholden to the rules that they clearly follow. For that show it’s has dependencies, dependencies show that it cannot exist on it’s own, and with out being able to exist on it’s own, it cannot be the solution. It’s just another peg in the causal chain and nothing more.[/quote]

Right, so as I said to Matt, you have two options. Either reality is an infinite regression of first causes, or there is some aspect of it above the constraints of time. I’m not going to bother with the first option because I know you don’t agree with it if even for no reason other than it immediately removes the need for God.

The difference we have about the second option is that you think this “singularity” is the concious creator of our universe, while I think a conciousness is unnecessary. My reasoning? Infinite energy poured over an infinite amount of time is already enough to guarantee the existence of our universe. There’s no need for anything else and therefore it would require extraordinary evidence to support the idea of a concious singularity. Your move, Pat.

213

[quote]pat wrote:
If there is another possibility, what is it? You said there are millions, give me one
[/quote]

Word of advice, Matt; Don’t do this.

Pat has this sneaky habit of pre-emptively preparing a back-door escape routes in case things get too tight. This is one of them.

214

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

If I said Harry Potter was historical fact, would you have to read all the Harry Potters before you can dismiss this claim?[/quote]

Not relevant. If I spent most my time critiquing the Harry Potter History Group, wouldn’t you expect me to be familiar with the Harry Potter books and what the Harry Potter History Group believes?[/quote]

An intelligent person could conclude that Harry Potter is bunk after one chapter.
[/quote]

Genesis can be refuted after one paragraph. So what?[/quote]

That’s what I’m saying, actually.

215

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit[/quote]

In which war have you been in active combat?[/quote]

This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
[/quote]

It is relevant because you said it was bullshit. That leads one to believe you have seen active combat and remained atheist through out. Otherwise, how would you know? I know people who have seen real actual combat, and none of them nor do they know of anybody in that situation that is atheist. Now, maybe there are, I don’t actually know, but the evidence is scant. [/quote]

I didn’t have to see combat to read the accounts of service men and women who came through it and renounced religion. It’s a bullshit comment on it’s face.

You can say that atheists in foxholes are a minority, and you’d probably be right, but that has everything to do with atheists being a minority in general. More soldiers and Marines go into combat as believers, therefore more come out as believers. This is simple logic, patty cakes, do try to keep up.

Now, if you do some research, you’ll find examples of fighting men who seen shitty combat and renounced religion. What do you say to that?

Saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes, is christian bullshit logic, and I’m throwing the bullshit flag on it.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?[/quote]

Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem, and I have plenty of discussing going on. But if you drop other asshat one liners I may drive by again.[/quote]

Actually, it was an ad hominen argument, in support of a fallacious statement. You do understand what an ad hominem argument is, right?

Keep throwing your ignorance up on these forums, it’s quite amusing. I thought you were better than this, I really did; perhaps I gave you too much credit?

216

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
The reason I asked for a length limitation is that if Pat, Trib, et al claim it is “so obvious” that God must exist, then it should not require pages of complex explanation. After multiple threads discussing similar issues, it’s clear that even if the aforementioned individuals are set in their dogmatic beliefs (Pat/Trib, not hating on you guys at all) it was not something that required little to no thought … therefore making it nonobvious. [/quote]

It matters in what way you’re viewing or defining (make a distinction from another thing) the thing referred to here as God. If you have in mind the flying spaghetti monster hiding behind Mars. Yes, the explanation seems somewhat convoluted. However, it has been repeated by the Christians theologians, Pope Benedict most recent, that the pagan philosophers had identified God through their convoluted mess of philosophies: God is that which nothing higher can be thought of. Socrates identified God in his false dichotomy to the unquestioning believer, as the Good which dictates the tyrant gods of ancient greece.

217

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

We have the testimony of those who walked with him. They are all liars? I suppose it makes sense to lay your life down for someone that you made up stories about. Right? [/quote]

We also have the testimony of people who claimed to be abducted by aliens. They will give you detailed accounts of their experience and you will find similarities between completely separate accounts.

Do you believe them too?
[/quote]

There is a difference between the actions of those with disillusions and those who are lying. It is not the same thing.

218

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
OK, then I rephrase my statement to encompass this earlier event. Abiotic processes producing organic molecules is the uncaused-cause. You get my point. Some event in the biology chain is the uncaused-cause. The argument still holds.[/quote]

But those abiotic process are then explained by geology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, and so on. In short, the matter and energy shaping the earth and it’s environment (including the above abiotic processes) have explanations/causes. [/quote]

Out of curiosity, is your education background in science? [/quote]

So far (attending). Why?
[/quote]

Do you agree with Santorum that Universities are indoctrination mills?

Are you attending a religious university?[/quote]

Yes, that’s what a doctor is, someone that indoctrinates. The problem is the vilification of indoctrination.

219

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that’s what a doctor is, someone that indoctrinates. The problem is the vilification of indoctrination.[/quote]I think I agree with what you’re trying to say here Chris.

220

What is Judaism?