Reincarnated thread - Adam and Eve's Invention? ;)

[methodman535]

Im gunna try rebuilding this from my web cache. Apparently Internet Explorer stores the thread's last page if you clicked POST REPLY and made a new post, however it doesnt save the very last response you make :x


If anyone has the "Becoming Muslim" thread in their cache try doing the same please.

[methodman535]

Man made God or God made Man?

I would have to agree with the former. Mainly because I have this silly thing about seeing is believing.
I said that once to someone and they said well you can't see the wind yet I accept that... The wind can still be felt. It has been 'proven' so to speak but God...

No offence intended to anyone. My Mummy believes in God and my Grandmother is even more so an avid believer. When I see her pray it's amazing to me. Before she does so she always asks me to join her. I refuse.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I can't explain my thoughts but I know they have always been.

[methodman535]

Man made God or God made Man?

I would have to agree with the former. Mainly because I have this silly thing about seeing is believing.
I said that once to someone and they said well you can't see the wind yet I accept that... The wind can still be felt. It has been 'proven' so to speak but God...

No offence intended to anyone. My Mummy believes in God and my Grandmother is even more so an avid believer. When I see her pray it's amazing to me. Before she does so she always asks me to join her. I refuse.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I can't explain my thoughts but I know they have always been.



If seeing is believing, explain how everything exists in such a perfect order. If you can explain that, then explain entropy. How can there be a such thing as entropy if there weren't God? I would like to point you towards this small bit of reading:

http://alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_4_section_6.html

[methodman535]

Man made God or God made Man?

I would have to agree with the former. Mainly because I have this silly thing about seeing is believing.
I said that once to someone and they said well you can't see the wind yet I accept that... The wind can still be felt. It has been 'proven' so to speak but God...

No offence intended to anyone. My Mummy believes in God and my Grandmother is even more so an avid believer. When I see her pray it's amazing to me. Before she does so she always asks me to join her. I refuse.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I can't explain my thoughts but I know they have always been.


God made man from mud. thats my perspective..im not aware of yours tho, but i respect whatver your thoughts are.

Ceeing is beLIEving is your preception. Perception is how things are ceen... Eye mean a person can have a opinion and not perceive a damn thing. If you increase ur preception your opinion can change. And reli-gion now puts too much reli-ance on their opinion and non on perception.

preception is in the Mental, this is the first stage (UNARVU..Sensory Feeling,Perception... ) of the 7 states of consciousness.

power equality

[methodman535]

Man made God or God made Man?

I would have to agree with the former. Mainly because I have this silly thing about seeing is believing.
I said that once to someone and they said well you can't see the wind yet I accept that... The wind can still be felt. It has been 'proven' so to speak but God...

No offence intended to anyone. My Mummy believes in God and my Grandmother is even more so an avid believer. When I see her pray it's amazing to me. Before she does so she always asks me to join her. I refuse.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I can't explain my thoughts but I know they have always been.



I haven't read the whole thread... but just to reply to the original message.

I believe that both statements are true
i.e. Man made many God's and God made man.

We see throughout history that civilisations start worshipping the Sun, the Moon, idols, animals, etc, etc... people make these things their god.

BUT I think that it is undeniable through logic and reasoning that there exists a creator. This creator is what we call god. For me, any one who ponders over the world, its contents and the universe will eventually come to the realisation that there must have been a creator.

Storms

[methodman535]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.

[methodman535]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.

I would have to start by saying that your post reveals a negative bias towards those who chose to believe in the various religions scattered throughout our world. Your post gives off the tone that agnostics and atheists are somehow superior intellectually to those who chose to believe in God and that it is not logical, in this day and age, to believe in God. It overall sounds like you are high off yourself (no disrespect) and that u feel that u are superior to others. if i am wrong please correct me.

I would like to say that first of all man did not create God. Man may have created religions and cults and etc. but man cannot logically create God , only an idea of Him. Also u start by giving two premises about various religion either one is right or that they are all b.s.. But u seem to have no knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of these various religions because if u did, then u would be able to recognize that while there are numerous trivial differences, the similarities are much more compelling. The fact is that the religions were cultivated and proselytized in different cultures and regions and so they adapted to the people of the region. That does not make them all lies or so different that they must be b.s.. It is also possible to have varying views and have some truth in each of the various views. It is even so in science. Religion is not an exact science, it is religion. Heck even all science isn't exact.

You second major point is that a religious person choses to believe in God although it defies all logic. That is a flawed conclusion in itself because it is taught in numerous philosophy classes and such that it is in fact logical to believe in God. I was wondering if u ever read the logical and philosophical argument made by St. Thomas Aquinas. Yes he was catholic, but his argument was philosophically sound and so it is taught even by atheists :shock: , yes you read right a religious person made a logically sound argument defending the existence of God. I do not care to elaborate his various arguments but seeing as you are quite the logical one, i'm sure u have read it already.(not being sarcastic, im merely assuming correct me if im wrong but u seem well read)

And as for you constant referances to emotion. Do you not use emotions at all? Do you never get angry? Do you never feel sad or hurt? Are always super rationalistic in your approaches? Did you ever tell a girl you love her? If not will you? Have you ever slept with a woman?
Note: I dont really want to know the answer to these questions they are simply rhetorical, but feel free to answer them if you wish.

I am asking all of these questions because you act as though emotions are a crutch. That all of these various feelings one has detracts from thinking rationally. I think even science states that humans are emotional beings and to deny that fact would be detrimental. But the key point lies in control of emotions, not the lack thereof.

And as for Atheisms recent rise in popularity. Atheism is simply the new black (so to speak) because it is relatively new is why it has garnered a following. In fact the majority of polls show that atheism has "leveled off" in terms of growth. It was at approximately 5% in the 1930s and still is according to the majority of polls.(polls in the U.S.)

Also if religion is fiction, then so is science. Scientific theories and formulas are simply "accepted" after a series of tests and trials. That is until someone can prove them wrong. Nothing is bulletproof. Afterall "To Err is Human" whether you believe in God or not.

Finally i would just like to say that i simply responded because it seemed like you were saying that those who follow a religion are basically emotion driven idiots. But the fact is that both atheism and the various religions contain those driven by emotion. Some(not all) see atheism as a convenient excuse to shun common decency and morality, while some see religion as an excuse to do the same. The fact is being an atheist or agnostic does not make you intellecutally superior to the other 95% of the population. And being a part of a religion does not guarantee anything either.
Just my 2 cents

-peace

[Anonymous]

Awwwwwww!!!!! My thread Shooo shweet!

[methodman535]

:oops:

[bill]

Alright pakannan just owned methodman, no need for me to reply.

[methodman535]

Alright pakannan just owned methodman, no need for me to reply.


You will reply when this thread gets going again. So far it hasnt picked up any new life.

[bill]

Alright pakannan just owned methodman, no need for me to reply.


You will reply when this thread gets going again. So far it hasnt picked up any new life.

I'll reply if you reply.

[methodman535]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.



I would have to start by saying that your post reveals a negative bias towards those who chose to believe in the various religions scattered throughout our world. Your post gives off the tone that agnostics and atheists are somehow superior intellectually to those who chose to believe in God and that it is not logical, in this day and age, to believe in God. It overall sounds like you are high off yourself (no disrespect) and that u feel that u are superior to others. if i am wrong please correct me.


I would like to say that first of all man did not create God. Man may have created religions and cults and etc. but man cannot logically create God , only an idea of Him. Also u start by giving two premises about various religion either one is right or that they are all b.s.. But u seem to have no knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of these various religions because if u did, then u would be able to recognize that while there are numerous trivial differences, the similarities are much more compelling. The fact is that the religions were cultivated and proselytized in different cultures and regions and so they adapted to the people of the region. That does not make them all lies or so different that they must be b.s.. It is also possible to have varying views and have some truth in each of the various views. It is even so in science. Religion is not an exact science, it is religion. Heck even all science isn't exact.

When I say that man created god I did not mean it literally. What I meant was that man created the concept of god as well as various religions at the center of which the core concept is a god or gods. After the creation of these core concepts, this mythology became the "divine premise" and this is the essence of each religion/cult. I assert that there was always this burning question in peoples heads, where did everything come from? And the creation of god and religion by man was a response, to fill this vaccum. You accuse me of having no knowledge of the fundementals of any religions. I would have you know that I am familiar with the basics of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism/Brahmanism, Buddhism, Astrology, Phrenology, Palmistry, Satanism and Shintoism to name a few. Dont bother telling me these are not all religions. You are right they all have a COMMON CORE that points towards them all being "right" about something if you choose to think that way. However, it can also point to them just filling that universal and common vaccum in human knowledge which I mentioned earlier and which you choose to ignore completely. A theist will never ignore that, an athesit will always ignore and dismiss it. An agnostic will consider it but not with the loyal compulsion that you have demonstrated. Now having said that, just because man created the idea of god does not mean man is wrong. Of course when a man takes a guess at something he can be right or wrong! My view is that man took a guess at the idea and concept of god, throughout history as is evidenced by various religions in various cultures and because these are just guesses....is why you see so many differences among religions.


You second major point is that a religious person choses to believe in God although it defies all logic. That is a flawed conclusion in itself because it is taught in numerous philosophy classes and such that it is in fact logical to believe in God. I was wondering if u ever read the logical and philosophical argument made by St. Thomas Aquinas. Yes he was catholic, but his argument was philosophically sound and so it is taught even by atheists :shock: , yes you read right a religious person made a logically sound argument defending the existence of God. I do not care to elaborate his various arguments but seeing as you are quite the logical one, i'm sure u have read it already.(not being sarcastic, im merely assuming correct me if im wrong but u seem well read)


First of all, you are misquoting me entirely. I never said it is illogical to believe in god. "One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong". Meaning that it is illogical, biased and unthorough to believe in one religion entirely as the whole truth and dismiss all the others at their points of conflict with other creeds as lies. As an example, a catholic believes in god and also believes jesus was the flesh incarnation of god himself. A catholic also rejects Muhamad as a messenger of god, many consider him the antichrist. Let me dwell a bit more on this point because it makes more sense when you dig a bit deeper. A second example: a brahmin believes in reincarnation and "soul recycling" but rejects the day of judgement as an infantile fairy story. To reject the day of judgement, the brahmin has to reject one of the cores of islam/xtianity. A "theist" believes in god. You made a sort of a "theistic" argument that since all religions have a common subset of beliefs they can agree on, then at the very least that common core subset must be right. This seemingly logical and sound assertion by you was made when you took off your muslim/abrahamic thinking cap and put on your "theist" thinking cap. All in the name of abstract thought you dropped your "trivial differences" with other religions. But correct me if I am wrong, you are not a non-religious theist but are probably something like a muslim. Which means the core of YOUR religious beliefs dictate that all the other religions are wrong at least partially and that Islam is 100% correct. So to further the case for the existence of god, you stop being muslim and become theist and then snap back to being muslim again. I have heard of St Thomas but never read his works but I suspect he used a similar technique?

Now take a look at my two possibilities again. Number one is not a generally loose theist's way of thinking but it is a fundementally religious person's way of thinking, to the exclusion of other competing faiths. In other words I am criticising mass religion and people's illogical adherance to religion...NOT their "logical" acceptance that there is a god. But yes you do have a point that option 1 does not defy ALL logic. My view is that people have an emotional desire to believe that their particular sect is the right one vs the more cynical and humble and yes of course logical deduction that their religion too is artificial not godsent.



And as for you constant referances to emotion. Do you not use emotions at all? Do you never get angry? Do you never feel sad or hurt? Are always super rationalistic in your approaches? Did you ever tell a girl you love her? If not will you? Have you ever slept with a woman?
Note: I dont really want to know the answer to these questions they are simply rhetorical, but feel free to answer them if you wish.

I am asking all of these questions because you act as though emotions are a crutch. That all of these various feelings one has detracts from thinking rationally. I think even science states that humans are emotional beings and to deny that fact would be detrimental. But the key point lies in control of emotions, not the lack thereof.





This is comical now. You sound like Dr Mcoy yelling at Mr Spock. I am capable of experiencing the full spectrum of human emotion and yes I believe when emotion overules logic then the mind can trick itself sometimes into twisting logic to make its own reality that it wants to live in. Since you brought the topic up let me point at some of the emotions involved in religion. Fear. fear of eternal hellfire and gods wrath for heresy and disbelief. Lust and averice...the promise of a life in eternal bliss with tons of milk and honey. The fear of the unknown, especially after death also compells people to follow religion does it not? The key point that you mentioned here, control of emotions would be a detriment to many a persons "blind faith" wouldnt you agree? It seems to me that atheists and agnostics let emotion clould their judgement when it comes to religion....less than religious people do. Atheists however do have a rigid belief there is no god at all and are in a sense the antithesis of a theist. Agnostics on the other hand are least emotional and rigid in these matters in my opinion so they may come closer to the truth since theres is nothing to coerce/browbeat them into following a certain rigid path. So i gues of the lot agnostics have the broadest of view points and are open to anything, unlike religious ppl who stick to their particular brand of 'ticket to heaven' or athiests who r too cocksure to admit that some decisions in their life cannot b controlled by them

[paulie walnuts]

methodman, you remind me of a famous Nietzsche quote - "Is Man a
Blunder of God? Or is God a blunder of man?"

[ThreeFiddy]

I see no point in replying to your opinions regarding religion - to me it reads as a big conjecture that could be interpreted in two ways. One says God gave us the scriptures [insert religious proof here], and the other says god didn't give it to us because I wasn't there to witness it [insert the common "man created god as a false sense of security" argument here].

But just as a FYI, here's an essay written that logically "proves" the existence of god.

taken from http://www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1383


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

plus you should go here

http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=pages/articles.jsp&pagetitle=Articles

By G. Brady Lenardos

In August of 1993, my friend, Jeff McCain, and I participated in a
debate at the Orange County Regional Gathering of Mensa. The topic
was the existence of God. Jeff and I took the affirmative position, an
Agnostic and an Atheist took the negative position. Jeff presented
an inductive, historical argument for the existence of God, and I
presented a deductive argument for the existence of God. As I was
developing the material for the debate, I began testing it by
arguing some points with a number of Atheists and Agnostics on
the Internet. To my surprise, in every case, my opponent either outright
rejected logic, or tenaciously held on to a logical fallacy, even after
knowing it was a fallacy.

The version you have before you is an updated version of the
argument. There are more diagrams and charts, and several new
sections have been added to answer objections that I have encountered
in my debates. I hope you will enjoy this new version. My thanks to
all who took the time and thought to enter into debate with me.

Let's Begin -

A common phrase that I hear from would be philosophers is: "No one
can prove that God exists." This is usually followed by someone else
saying: "Oh yeah! Well, no one can prove He doesn't!" This is
not a very well thought out assertion by the unbeliever, but the
response of the believer is even worse!

For the unbeliever to make the assertion "No one can prove that God
exists" requires one of two possibilities to be true on the
unbeliever's part.

1) The unbeliever has examined and found all possible arguments
(inductive and deductive) for the existence of God that have ever
been offered and could ever be offered to be wanting,

2) The unbeliever has some way of knowing without examining any
arguments that it is not possible to prove that God exists.

I personally have never found an unbeliever who has claimed to
have examined all possible arguments for the existence of God, nor have
I found one who could give an apriori reason why it is impossible to
prove that God exists. This would not mean that one of these two
possibilities could not be the case; But the fact that I am offering a
logically valid demonstration that God does exist, would suggest that
neither is the case.

Let's go back to the believer. The burden of proof does fall to
the person making the affirmative statement. This means that the
person stating that God exists must show his position to be true.
The statement by the believer, " No one can prove God doesn't exist," is
quite unacceptable. In other words, he must show that his position
accurately reflects reality; that there is a correspondence between
what the believer says, and what really is the case. Luckily
for the believer, we can demonstrate that God does exist. The person
who believes in God does not have to use such lame comebacks as
"Nobody can prove that God doesn't exist." However, the believer
must take the time to study and research the issues that are being
discussed. After you finish studying this paper, when someone
says: "You can't demonstrate that God exists!", you can respond:
"Sure I can. Let me show you!"

Absolute certainty -

Throughout history theologians and philosophers have presented
cosmological, or causal arguments for the existence of God. Such
well known names as St. Augustine (5th cent. AD), Rene Descartes
(17th cent. AD), and Norman Geisler (20th Cent. AD), as well as many
others, hold to the logical validity of such arguments. The advantage
that Augustine, Descartes, and Geisler have is that they start from
a point of certainty. After this they went into different
directions. We will also start with these thinkers, and then we will
go our separate way.

The point of certainty we will begin with is our self. Rene
Descartes, the French, rationalist, philosopher is famous for the
expression "I think, therefore I am." Although he never put it in
those exact words, the thought can be found is his book "The
Meditations" (I suggest reading at least the first three chapters of
"The Meditations"). Descartes' idea is that this expression is the
first thing that we can know with certainty. Briefly, his argument
runs something like this: Let us take a philosophical journey. We
will only affirm as true everything that we can know with
certitude. Everything else we will doubt, until we can build a case
based upon the thing(s) we can know for certain. We should
doubt our senses; for our senses may deceive us, as with optical
illusions. We should doubt our idea of the world around us, for even
the idea of our own bodies may be false, as in a dream. But, the one
thing we can't doubt is that we are doubting; for if we doubt that, we
are still doubting. And if you are doubting, then you are thinking;
for doubting is thinking. If you are thinking you must exist; for
only existing beings can think.

Another way of putting it is: If you can say "I exist," then you
know with certainty that you exist, for you must exist to state "I
exist." If one does not exist, then that person would not be around
to make the statement. Norman Geisler calls this statement an
"existentially undeniable" statement (See Geisler's "Philosophy of
Religion"). Even if a person tries to deny his own existence, it
can easily be proven that their denial is false. The very denial
creates a contradiction. For the person must exist to deny that
the person exists. If the person did not exist, then the person
wouldn't be around to make the denial. So, we are forced to a position
of certainty. The statement "I exist," is necessarily true every
time I uttered it. The only other alternative is to reject logic.
The reason is that this premise is firmly grounded in
the law of non-contradiction. Without this law no communication
would be possible. Without this law there is no meaning at all. A
logician would define this law by saying: 'A' cannot equal non-'A'.
That is to say that something cannot be both wet and dry, in the
same way, at the same time, in the same sense. Therefore, I
cannot exist and not exist in the same way, at the same time, in the
same sense. It is this basic law that must be rejected in order to
reject our premise, and that leads to absurdity.

We have reached a point of certainty: I exist. If I exist,
then something exists, for I fall into the category of something.

Here is our starting point, our first and undeniable premise:

Something exists.

I also ask, for the sake of argument and available space, that
you grant something that you probably already affirm as true: That the
universe around us also exists: That is our dimensions of time and
space, and energy and matter, and all that are inherent to them.
If you really have a problem with this, please write to me, and I
will be happy to discuss it with you individually. Due to the limited
space we have, I will ask for your indulgence.

So, here we are with something that exists.

Let's take a moment to diagram what we have agreed on.

Everything existing
-----------------------------------
| |
| |
| I |
| |
| |
| Universe |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------

Diagram 1.1

In the above diagram we see the category of everything that exists.
In that category we see the two "somethings" that we have
agreed upon existing: "I" and "the universe", and actually, I am part of
the universe. At this point in the argument this is all that we know.

The next question that comes to mind is: Given that something exists
now, did something always exist? We may also ask whether we can know the
answer?

Fortunately there are a limited number of explanations, and we
can readily exclude several of them. Here is a list of all
possible explanations for this something that exists:

1) Something always existed. In other words, either this
something (the universe) always existed, or there was something else
that always existed from which this something is derived.

2) There was a point when nothing existed.

Let's begin a chart that will help us visualize the relationship of
the option.

CHART 1.1

Something exists
|
|
-------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
A point when there Something always
was non-existence existed


We have set up what is known in logic as a disjunct. That means that
there are two options available, and if one is false, then the other
is necessarily true.

Allow me to digress for a moment to explain how it works.

Let's say that you and your friend Fred are going to play a little
game. You have a penny and Fred has a quarter. These two coins are
the only coins in the room. The way to play the game is: First, you
turn your back. Next, Fred places one coin in his pants pocket, and the
other in his hand, and then closes his hand. The object is for you to
guess which coin is in his hand. (You must lead a very dull life if
you are playing this game). So, with this being done, you turn and
are about to make your guess when you notice the edge of the
quarter protruding from Fred's pants pocket. Given that there are
two and only two coins in the room, you have disproven that the
coin in Fred's hand is the quarter. Therefore, you conclude that the
coin in Fred's hand is necessarily (meaning: it must be) the penny.
You are right.

If we were to write it out long hand, it would go something like this:

1) Either the Penny or the Quarter is in Fred's hand.
2) It's not the Quarter (I see that in his pocket).
3) Therefore, it's the Penny in his hand.

In logical notation it would look something like this:

Let P = Penny, Let Q = Quarter

1) P or Q (Premise)
2) Not Q (Premise)
3) Therefore P (Conclusion)

The upshot of all this is, if we can demonstrate one of the
options in our disjunct to be false, then we know that the other option
is true.

To make matters more interesting there are three options that come
under the leg of "a point when there was non-existence":

a) Everything is an illusion, and nothing really exists.

b) Something created itself. The "something" is self-caused.

c) Something that now exists is derived, or caused, or came
from nonexistence (i.e. something came from nothing).

Let's add these to our chart:

CHART 1.2

Something exists
|
|
-------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
A point when there Something always
was non-existence existed
------------------------------
| | |
| | |
| | |
All is Self-caused Something
illusion came from
non-existence


Let's examine "a point when there was non-existence," and its
three options first.

Option (a) is easy to exclude as a real possibility. Option (a)
says that nothing exists; that everything is an illusion. We have
already determined that something exists, and we know that to be
undeniably true. If something exists, then everything cannot be an
illusion. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that
everything is an illusion. Wouldn't something have to exist to be
having an illusion? Non-existence can't have illusions, only
something that exists can have an illusion. Not only that, but the
something having the illusion must be a cognitive something. So this
possibility is self contradictory. It is logically impossible.
Scratch the first one.

Option (b) asserts that something (this something - our universe, or
perhaps something else from which this universe is derived) created
itself. However, in order to create itself, it would have to be
prior to its own existence. In other words it would have to be before
it was; it would have to be, and not be, at the same time, and in
the same sense. This is a flat out violation of the law
of non-contradiction. A logical contradiction forces us to reject this
option.

Option (c) says that something is derived from nothing. Let's
define 'Nothing.' Nothing is what we find when we look into an empty
cookie jar, there is nothing there, or no - thing there. By
nothing we mean non-existence, or a complete lack of all attributes:
No color, no shape, no size, no substance whatsoever, no attributes at
all. If something could come from nothing, this nothing would have to
at least have the attribute of being able to have something come
from it. If nothing has that attribute, nothing is not 'nothing'.
This is because the definition of 'nothing' is a complete lack of
ALL attributes, and that which we are calling 'nothing' would have
an attribute. The person who claims that something can come from
nothing is equivocating on the terms. That person is using the same
term in two different ways. The word 'nothing' means one thing at the
beginning of the argument (it means a complete lack of all
attributes), later it means something else (it means something
with at least one attribute). In other words this person is cheating
us with a semantic trick. But, we will not be fooled. Thus this third
option fails, and with it so does the entire point.

Given our above inferences, let's see what conclusion we can draw:

1) If there ever was a point when there was nothing (no existence)
and as we have already seen there would be no way to get
something from nothing, then there would be nothing now.

2) There is something now.

3) Therefore, there never was a point when there was nothing
(no existence).

Our conclusion is just another way of stating the second point of
our disjunct: Something always existed.

By examining our conclusion a little closer we are also able
to derive additional information from it. If something always existed,
then it does not have a cause that brought it into existence (if it did
have a cause, then it did not always exist). If this something had
no cause, it is uncaused. If it is uncaused, it is infinite in its
existence. These are some things that can be readily deduced, or
unpacked from the term "always existed." It may not be all that we
may know about that which always exists, but it does give us
enough information to continue our quest. We now know that there is
something that exists that has always existed, that is uncaused, and
infinite in its existence. There is nothing inherently
contradictory about something always existing. It is
philosophically sound. In fact it is held by most of the worlds
cosmologies, including Naturalism. The traditional Naturalistic
cosmology maintains that the universe is, in some way or another,
the always existing something from which anything and everything
else is derived. Theism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) also
maintains that there is an always existent. The difference is that
the Theist maintains that the always existent is external to, or outside
of, or transcendent to the universe in which we find ourselves,
yet this original being can somehow still directly work inside the
derived universe.

Let's add the always existent something to our diagram:

Everything existing
-----------------------------------------
| |
| ----------------- |
| I | | |
| | always | |
| | existing | |
| Universe | | |
| | | |
| ----------------- |
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------
Diagram 1.2


We now know that the membership of the category of "Everything"
includes The universe, and I (as part of the universe), and a
subcategory of "Always existed." As stated above it is possible
that the universe belongs to the category of "Always existed." At this
point we do not know that to be the case. So, we leave it
outside the category until we can determine if it belongs there.

Is the universe the always existent? -

Given that something has always existed, then either this universe
has always existed, or it is not. Again, we have set up a disjunct.

CHART 1.3

Something exists
|
|
-------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
A point when there Something always
was non-existence existed
------------------------------ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
All is Self-caused Something |
illusion came from |
non-existence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| The universe has
| not always existed
|
|
The universe has
always existed


If we can prove the leg that asserts "The universe has always
existed" is false, then we have demonstrated that the other leg is
true (again by disjunctive syllogism).

The attribute of 'always existent being' that we will focus on is
infinity. As we discussed above, an always existent being would have
to be infinite in its existence. Since the attribute of infinity is
inherent to always existing, if we can demonstrate that the universe
does not have this attribute, then we have demonstrated that the
universe does not fall into the category of "Always existed."

There are three possibilities that are offered under the leg
"The universe has always existed," :

1) It is possible that the substance, or stuff, or being of
this universe is infinite in existence.

2) It is possible that there was an infinite regress of finite events.

3) It is possible that the universe existed in some form prior to
the first motion event, outside of a dimension of time, and
in a completely static condition.

If we can demonstrate that these three possibilities are false,
then we have demonstrated that the leg is false. As we will see, these
three cover all possibilities.

Let's add the three possibilities for an always existing universe to
the chart:
CHART 1.4

Something exists
|
|
-------------------------------
| |
A point when there Something always
was non-existence existed
------------------------------ |
| | | |
All is Self-caused Something |
illusion came from |
non-existence |
|
--------------------------------------
| |
| The universe has
| not always existed
| |
The universe has |
always existed |
-------------------------------- There is something
| | | transcendent to our
| | | universe that always
| | | existed, is uncaused,
The substance of an infinite The universe and infinite.
the universe is regress of existed timeless
infinite finite events and static prior
to 1st motion
event


Let's examine the first two historical options available under this leg.
The first one says that the nature, or stuff, or substance of this
universe is infinite; it always existed. The changes we see are changes
in appearance not in substance. The second option says that the nature, or
stuff of the universe is finite, but there was an infinite regress of
connected events. Although, no thing or event could be considered infinite
in itself, the universe as a whole would have always existed though this
infinite, endless chain of cause and effect events.

These two views are different in fundamental points, but they do share
one point that is vulnerable to criticism, and shows them to be false.
Both views maintain that an infinite number of events have preceded the
present event, the event we are experiencing right now. They say that
an infinite series of events that stretch out into the past has been
traversed or crossed to bring us to the current event we are now
experiencing. If we can disprove this point, then both options are
shown to be false.

The above position is vulnerable when it claims that an infinite number
of events have been completely traversed. In other words, all
members of the set we can call `the past events' have been crossed,
and there are no events that can be called `past events' that have
not been crossed. The position also maintains that there is no
beginning to the series, thus the claim that the series is infinite.

To show the problem let's try a little theoretical experiment. Let's say
we can reverse the logical order of events. So, we would begin going
backward, crossing all events in the logical order except reversed.

The infinite universe models say that all past events have been
traversed coming forward. So, we should be able to traverse all events
going backwards. After all, there are no more events going backward,
than are coming forward; there are the exact same number of events.
But, if we can traverse all past events going backwards, we will
have come to a point when there are no more events to cross. Thus,
all events would be traversed. If all events have been traversed
going backwards, and no events remain to be traversed, then we will have
come to an end. If we come to an end, then the series is finite. You
see, an end going backward would be a beginning coming forward,
and if it had a beginning it must be finite. If it is finite it is not
infinite.

What if we never get to an end going backwards? It would mean that all
past events could not be traversed; and if all past events cannot be
traversed going backwards, then they could not be traversed coming
forwards. The same number of events are involved. If the series of events
could not be traversed coming forward, then we would never be able to
get to the current event we are experiencing right now. Yet, we are
at the present event. Therefore, there are not an infinite number of
events.

To summarize: If all past events could be traversed, then the past is
not infinite. If the past is infinite then all past events could not be
traversed to get us to the present event. Since the latter is patently
false (we are at the current event), and the former denies the main
premise of the infinite universe, which makes the proposition false, we
can conclude that the two options that maintain an infinite series of
past events are both false.

This brings us to the third option. It goes something like this:
The universe that is currently in motion existed in some form logically
prior to it's being in motion. At that point it was in a state
absolutely static (without motion, or event) and absolutely
timeless (without a dimension of time).

This option tries to avoid the error of attempting to traverse an
actual infinite series of events. If there were no events and no time
prior to the first motion event (presumably the big bang), it would be
possible for the universe to be placed in the category of "always
existed." This is because it could have existed without a beginning, and
prior to the first motion event.

For the above to be a real possibility the following two premises must
both be possible at the same time.

1) There was a point logically prior to the first event.

2) Whatever form the universe was in, it was absolutely static and
timeless prior to the first event.

Let's examine the proposed first event a little more carefully and see
what we can deduce given the premises.

There are three possibilities concerning any event. Either an
event is necessary (which means it must happen, and cannot not happen),
the event is contingent (it can happen or not happen depending on
conditions), or the event is impossible (it cannot happen).
Let's say that given the above scenario the first event was contingent.
There would be a point where the conditions needed for the first event
were not present, so there would be no first event until the conditions
came about for the first event. This gives us the "eternal" point prior
to the first event that is suggested. But, this means that conditions
would have to change in some way, so that the conditions needed for
the first event could come about. But, this change would be an event in
itself. So, it would be necessary to have an event precede the first event.
This would mean that the first event is not the "first event." It
also would deny that the universe was static prior to the "first
event." The idea that this first event is contingent allows for
premise 1, but denies premise 2.

Let's say that the first event was necessary. This would mean that if the
first event could occur, it must occur. If all conditions needed for
the first event were always present and there was no contingency, then
the event would occur. This would save us from needing an event preceding
our first event. However, If all conditions necessary for the first
event were present, the event would have occurred without a point
logically prior to it, for there would be no point logically prior such
that the conditions for the first event were not present. This denies
premise 1.

So, we see that given the above scenario, the first event is neither
contingent, nor necessary. Therefore, it is an impossible event, given
the premises. Since the universe is here, we must conclude that this
third option is false.

We may derive something else from the fall of the three above options:
Any other attempt to maintain that the universe always existed would
have to present a scenario such that the universe could not be always in
motion, nor be motionless at some prior point. Given the third law of
logic, the law of excluded middle, there is no possibility of any other
rational scenario proposing an always existent universe.

Since the three options available to the leg that maintains that the
universe has always existed are shown to be false, the leg itself is
shown false. If this leg is false, then the other leg of the disjunct
must be true (via disjunctive syllogism). The leg we find to be true is
that this universe has not always existed.

Although we have found that this universe did not always exist, we are
still stuck with the fact that there is something in the category of
"always existed." We also know that this `something' is infinite, and
uncaused. The philosophical term for an actual always existent
that is other than our universe is 'transcendent.' This argument
also shows that if the universe is not infinite, it had a beginning,
it is finite. If it is finite, then it is derived. That means it had to
come from something else. For, as we have already seen, something
cannot come from nothing.

So, here is what we have learned through our discussion:

1: Since something exists, something has always existed.

2: The something that has always existed is uncaused, infinite in
its existence.

3: This always existing something is transcendent to our universe (a
universe that did not always exist, and is derived).

Our final version of chart 1 now looks like this:

CHART 1.5

Something exists
|
|
-------------------------------
| |
A point when there Something always
was non-existence existed
------------------------------ |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
All is Self-caused Something |
illusion came from |
non-existence |
|
--------------------------------------
| |
| The universe has
| not always existed
The universe has |
always existed |
-------------------------------- There is something
| | | transcendent to our
| | | universe that always
| | | existed, is uncaused,
The substance of an infinite The universe and infinite.
the universe is regress of existed timeless
infinite finite events and static prior
to 1st motion
event

Although minimally so, isn't the term 'God' consistent with what we mean
when we talk about an infinite, uncaused, always existent, that is
transcendent to our finite, derived (created) universe?

Is this argument a good argument?-

First, in examining the argument we see that it follows
standard disjunctive syllogisms, nothing fancy, just straight forward
deductions. The form is a valid form. Which means that the form of
the argument will yield a true conclusion provided all the premises are
true. Thus, we say, the conclusion follows necessarily.

Second, we must examine the truth of the premises. The argument
unfolds by examining the possibilities that come from unpacking an
existentially undeniable premise ("I exist"). By `unpacking' I mean
finding the necessary implications of the idea. For instance, if I exist,
then it necessarily follows that something exists. If I know what I mean
by `I' and I know what I mean by `something,' then I know for certain
that if I exist, then something exists. I unpacked `something exists' from
the statement `I exist.' Where there was more than one possibility
unpacked, each was examined logically, and those that did not stand the
examination were discarded, leaving those that were shown logically
to be the case. In other words the premises used to demonstrate that God
exists are true premises.

Therefore, since the argument is valid, and the premises are true,
the conclusion yielded is a true conclusion. It is a conclusion that
accurately describes reality.

Some objections -

Even though the argument is sound, there have been some attempts to get
around the implication that God does exist. Allow me to share some
attempts people have tried to use to get out of accepting the conclusion of
the argument.
In the words of one gentleman whom I debated on this point:
"What Mr. Lenardos has not accounted for is that in addition to being
uncaused, always existent, transcendent, etc., `God' is almost
universally understood to be a conscious, volitional being. From this it
follows that no item picked out by the term `God' could lack these
properties and still be God." Here are a few examples of quotes from modern
day Atheist writers that were presented to me in that recent discussion:

From Philosopher Paul Edwards:

"It has frequently been pointed out that even if this argument (the
classical causal argument) were sound it would not establish the
existence of God. It would not show that the first cause is all-powerful
or all-good or that it is in any sense personal. Defenders of the causal
argument usually concede this and insist that the argument is not in
itself meant to prove the existence of God....Supplementary arguments are
required to show that the first cause must have attributes assigned to
the deity." (From his article in The Rationalist Annual, 1959)

From William Rowe:

"(I)t might be objected that even if Aquinas' arguments do prove beyond
doubt the existence of an unchanging changer, an uncaused cause, and a
being that could not have failed to exist, the arguments fail to prove
the existence of the theistic God." (Philosophy of Religion, Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1978)

Apparently these men, and there are others who follow them, feel
it is necessary to demonstrate personality to demonstrate that what we have
in a real always existing, uncaused, infinite that is transcendent to our
finite, caused, derived universe can be termed as "God." The question is
not whether God is a personal, active, volitional, conscious being, but
rather, is it necessary to demonstrate that the always existent that does
exist has these qualities in order to refer to it(?) as God?

I happen to believe that God is personal. I don't believe that
the demonstration of personality is needed to show that the always
existent is God. You will note that although my argument does not
demonstrate that the always existent is personal, the argument in no
way denies that the always existent is personal. At this point the
question is open.

This objection seems to me as nothing more than a last ditch effort to
keep from having to admit the obvious. The idea that one must either
demonstrate personality, or one cannot refer to the always existent as
"God" is absurd. One reason is that there are several religions and
philosophies that assert an impersonal God. It is not true that volition,
action, consciousness, i.e., personality is universally held. Here are just
a couple of examples:

1) Hinduism. The ultimate being (God) in Hinduism is Brahman. Here is what
John B. Noss, author of "Man's Religions", has to say concerning
Brahman in the Hindu writings: "Some treatises, the earlier ones,
regularly refer to Brahman as a neuter something, without motion or
feeling, the impersonal matrix from which the universe has issued and to
which it will in time return. This It, this One Thing, is the
substratum of everything." Further reading in the Upanishads (sacred
Hindu writings) reveal that there is a personal form of Brahman (called
the formed) and an impersonal form (called the formless). However,
it is the impersonal that is the ultimate and real: "There are,
assuredly, two forms of Brahman: the formed and the formless. Now that
which is formed is unreal; that which is formless is real" (from "Maitri
Upanishad"). So we find that the "real" is the impersonal. On further
reading we also find that this "formless" and real is also action less.

2) Plotinus. Plotinus had a huge neo-platonic following in the third
century A.D. This next quotation is from Fredrick Copleston's "A History of
Philosophy." It is about Plotinus' concept of God: "God is absolutely
transcendent: He is the One, beyond all thought and all being... God is
accordingly THE GOOD rather than "good." Moreover, we can legitimately
ascribe to the One neither thought nor will nor activity."

3) Furthermore, we find that not even Theists historically believed
that demonstrating personality was necessary to show that God exists. Such
as Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, and many others offered
arguments for the existence of God that did not include personality as
a criteria for demonstrating that God existed. Assuredly, all of them
offered other arguments at different points that God is a personal
being, but they did not find it necessary to offer an argument for
personality to demonstrate that God existed. So we find that from
historical, philosophical, religious, and theistic stand points, it is
not necessary to demonstrate that God is personal, to demonstrate
that God does exist. Allow me to offer a list of just a few of the
philosophers who argued for the existence of God without an inherent
argument for personality in the argument presented:

Plato (see "Laws" and "Phaedrus")

Aristotle (see "Metaphysics")

Anselm (see "Prologion" and "Monologion")

Alfarabi (for easy references for this and the next see "A History of
Medieval Philosophy" by Armand A. Maurer)

Avicenna

Thomas Aquinas (see "Summa Theologica")

John Duns Scotus (see "Philosophical Writings" trans. Allan B. Wolter)

Rene Descartes (see "Meditations" ch.5)

Leibniz (see "Monadology")

Spinoza (see "Ethics")

Richard Taylor (see "The Cosmological Argument")

Charles Hartshorne (see "The Ontological Argument")

N. Malcolm (see "The Ontological Argument")

Here we have a wide range of philosophers from many different
viewpoints. Represented are Dualists, Pantheists, Panentheists, Muslims,
and Christians.

The meaning of a term can be drawn from its common usage within a
community. The community that deals with the type of argument I have
given is the philosophical/religious community. The common usage within
this community for the last 2500 years refers to an infinite, uncaused,
always existent which is transcendent to our finite, derived, caused
universe as God. The conjunction of the above examples demonstrate that
the premise that says it is necessary to show personality before we may
refer to the always existent as "God" is false.
Another debater attempted to argue in this manner:
"The article fails to carry out some crucial self-analysis on its conclusions.
Doing so would reveal that the conclusions reached within the article disprove
the entity the article claims to prove exists. The same reasoning by which the
article 'disproves' an always existent universe also apply to the entity the
article proposes."
What this debater is trying to say is that the same argument that is used to show
the universe is not always existent can be use to show the God is not always
existent. This debater would be correct given any type of God that existed
sequentially or was trapped within our dimension of time. In Christianity at
least, God is not a sequential being and two other options have been offered
concerning His existence. Christian theology has suggested that God is either
timeless (outside of a dimension of time) or exists on multiple dimensions of time.
God is not trapped in our one single dimension of created time. If either of these
options is the case, then the above objection fails. So, our friend has not shown
the existence of an always existent God to be impossible. He has shown that one type
of god would be impossible and type of god is not one that most religious philosophies
are interested in anyway.
Another debater reacted to the argument for the existence of God in this fashion:
"Although, the argument that our universe is not infinite looks good at first,
we must remember that we don't know everything there is to know about infinity.
We may even learn some new things in the future that would overturn what we
know now. But, I think it may just be that our minds are not able to grasp enough
about infinity to make the conclusion drawn here."
There are actually three objections here:
1) We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because we don't know
enough about infinity.
2) We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because we may learn
more about infinity later that would change our views.
3)We shouldn't accept that the universe is not infinite, because our minds cannot
grasp enough about infinity make that conclusion.
Regarding the first two, they are forms of the logical fallacy Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam. This is because the conclusion they seek to draw is not based on
what we do know, but based on what we don't know. The reason they are fallacious
is because they can be use for or against anything. For instance, we shouldn't
accept the theory of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics because we just
don't know enough about them and we may even learn some new things in the future
that would overturn what we think we know now. Consider this one, we shouldn't
reject the existence of unicorns or leprechauns because we just don't know enough
about them and we may even learn some new things in the future that would overturn
what we think we know now. One could also argue, we shouldn't accept that the
universe is infinite because we just don't know enough about it and we may even
learn some new things in the future that would overturn what we think we know now.
This is just bad reasoning and is to be avoided at all cost.
In the third objection, I guess our critic is at least willing to accept that
something is finite, our minds. Although this objection is similar to the first
two, it differs slightly. The first two merely claim a lack of knowledge. This
claims a lack of capability to know. But the problem that this critic has just
run in to is not based on what we don't know about infinity, but what we do know.
Let's take an example, If the only thing a person knew about a cat is that it
is a mammal, that person could easily conclude that his goldfish was not a cat.
He need not know everything about either the cat or the fish. He just needs
to know one clearly identifying feature to draw this basic conclusion. The one
thing he does know about the cat, clearly and distinctly, does not fit with what
he knows about the fish. No matter how much more information he gathers about
the cat and the fish, that disparity will never be closed. The fish will never
be though a cat, because our person knows that a cat is a mammal and he knows
the fish is not a mammal.
That is the problem our objector has here. When ever we compare the clear and
distinct things we do know about infinity to our universe, we never have a
correspondence, in fact just the opposite is true, we see a disparity each and
every time. No matter how much more capable our minds could become or how much
more information we could get about infinity, this basic and primary disparity
can never be expunged.

Last thoughts -

The argument I have given rest firmly and solidly on the laws of logic; in
other words, rational thought. If someone would like to get around this
argument there is only one way to do it: simply reject rational
thought. You see, at the very beginning of the argument we had
to make a choice: If we would deal with our topic rationally, or
irrationally. If we chose the irrational, my argument is cut off at the
root. I can't even make my first point, because all communication
assumes rational thought. If, however, we chose to deal with the subject
rationally, then the conclusion is clear: God exists!

You may find some who don't mind taking the irrational route when dealing
with the existence of God. But, there can be no real reason to reject
rational thought when it concerns God, and accept it in other areas. It
is the same rational thought that tells a person to chew on the steak,
and not the steak knife. So, if a person would be consistent in
really giving up rational thought, it would be a toss up as to whether
the person chews on the edge of the knife, or the steak presented on the
plate. But, since we find few people who reject the existence of God,
who are chewing on steak knives, we must assume that either they have
not examined this argument, or they are selectively rejecting the
argument despite its validity, and soundness. Each person must choose
the way he will go. My only problem is with the person who rejects
the argument and insists he is being rational. The person who rejects
the argument, and rational thought, has a right to do so, but should at
least be honest about it.

Suggested reading:
* R. Descartes, Meditations, Chapters 1-3
* N. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion, Chapters 8 & 9
* R.C. Sproul, Reason to Believe, Chapter 7
* William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Chapter 3
* J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Chapter 1

[methodman535]

ThreeFiddy if you see no point in replying to my opinion then kindly stay out of the thread if you have nothing original to share. I could find 10 articles like that on google in less than 2 minutes, the whole point of this thread is to discuss, not to spam peoples posts with anything you find on the net. This isnt the "Serious Copy and Paste Skills" Forum or "Gigglicious Spamming" or whatever. :roll:

[ThreeFiddy]

ThreeFiddy if you see no point in replying to my opinion then kindly stay out of the thread if you have nothing original to share. I could find 10 articles like that on google in less than 2 minutes, the whole point of this thread is to discuss, not to spam peoples posts with anything you find on the net. This isnt the "Serious Copy and Paste Skills" Forum or "Gigglicious Spamming" or whatever. :roll:

Did you read the article before commenting?

I'll quote you -

I have heard of St Thomas but never read his works but I suspect he used a similar technique?

Now, go read the article again.

[pkannan]

whoa
first of all i would like to start off by saying i thought this thread was dead in the water. hence my horrendously delayed reply.

ok in response to methodman, i would like to say that first of all your assumption is in fact false. i subscribe to no religious label. no i am not muslim. pkannan is short for poocha kannan which is my nickname and which means "cat eyes" in my language. just had to clarify because many people thought i was pakistani and muslim because of my sn.

in addition. As i said St. thomas's argument is accepted by the general philosophical community because it does NOT bring in any religious beliefs into the argument. it is purely logical. i dont feel like explaining it here, but i would suggest you read up on it when u get the time.

Also i do believe in God, but i do not subscribe to any religion. i am not against atheism. but i feel that it is more logical to believe in an all powerful being or power that created the universe. The religions may be man made, but the power still exists.
i dont feel that the big-bang and other such theories are too believable. i feel there are too many variables. I just dont believe that if lightning struck at just the right time, at just the right place, when just the right configuration of chemicals were there, then something was created(that is the basic premise of the big bang theory as it relates to the creation of life is it not) that seems tooo far fetched given the complexities of the various organisms scattered throughout this universe.

Oh and just so you know from what i have read about christianity(in response to St. thomas). it does not exclude those of other religions. Certain people may say that christianity is the only way to "heaven", but i dont believe christ says it. He says those who do the "will" of God will get into heaven, not everyone who cries "God" or "Jesus" and "claims" them as their savior. but those that live in service to their fellow man. that is what i see is common in all religions. service is greatness. humility is greatness. this is what i see when i see Gandhi, when i see Mother Theresa, when i see various others who lived their life in service.

well that is my piece
peace

[brij]

Man made God or God made Man?

I would have to agree with the former. Mainly because I have this silly thing about seeing is believing.
I said that once to someone and they said well you can't see the wind yet I accept that... The wind can still be felt. It has been 'proven' so to speak but God...

No offence intended to anyone. My Mummy believes in God and my Grandmother is even more so an avid believer. When I see her pray it's amazing to me. Before she does so she always asks me to join her. I refuse.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."

I can't explain my thoughts but I know they have always been.





I always wondered what would make man create a god and believe in a god. In the end I guess it all ends up with death. Not the physical type of death but the spiritual kind. As human beings we can foresee our own deaths, we know that one day we will end. But there is a simple method to combat this, GOD, creating a god and believing in a god allows us to live forever, we can never end, we either go to heaven. Hell, reincarnated, ect. This I believe is the major reason to why we require a god to believe in. This idea is even incorporated in religions.

E.g
Jesus said, " Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:25-26)


From a fear of the unknown we create a god, from a god we no longer need to fear death as we now can live forever.

Problems with a god, many people today believe in all kinds of gods, there are millions, everyone has there own different version of god, of how god works, how god runs the universe, ect. People and religion has given god characterises, attributes, a working, ect, many of which defies logic. Which one of these different versions are correct?

The fact is there could be a powerful being out there, there could be all kinds of creators, creators which created creators. What makes god a god? Why must there be a god before us, the dinosaurs were before us, the universe billions of years old. The fact is there are many mysteries to life, to simply replace one mystery with another like ‘’GOD’’ does not answer any questions other then to blind us from reality and progressing.

[Ragga_NZ]

K wayyyy too much to read so i'ma just ad my bit.

i reckon man made god

Why:

Someone to blame = "god wanted it that way"
An excuse to give up = "It's in gods hands now"
A form of control = "be a good boy or u'll go n burn in hell"
Someone to talk to that doesn't blab

i'm sure i used to have a couple more, been a while since i had this discussion.

P.S. i have no probs wif religious folks...as long as they don't come knocking on my door or sentence me to hell on the main street of town.

:lol:

[ThreeFiddy]

Why:

Someone to blame = "god wanted it that way"
An excuse to give up = "It's in gods hands now"
A form of control = "be a good boy or u'll go n burn in hell"

This is an insult on the folks who do believe in God but not for any of those reasons...but whatever. You're entitled to what you wanna believe.

[ThreeFiddy]

i dont feel that the big-bang and other such theories are too believable. i feel there are too many variables. I just dont believe that if lightning struck at just the right time, at just the right place, when just the right configuration of chemicals were there, then something was created(that is the basic premise of the big bang theory as it relates to the creation of life is it not) that seems tooo far fetched given the complexities of the various organisms scattered throughout this universe.

Actually that's the abiogenesis theories, or how life began spontaneously. It's a theory that isn't backed up by much and there's been a lot of efforts recently by scientists to come up with a theory that seals the various holes in the current lightnning-earth theory. The big-bang theory is the start of the universe from a massive exlposion.

[pkannan]

i dont feel that the big-bang and other such theories are too believable. i feel there are too many variables. I just dont believe that if lightning struck at just the right time, at just the right place, when just the right configuration of chemicals were there, then something was created(that is the basic premise of the big bang theory as it relates to the creation of life is it not) that seems tooo far fetched given the complexities of the various organisms scattered throughout this universe.

Actually that's the biogenesis theories, or how life began spontaneously. It's a theory that isn't backed up by much and there's been a lot of efforts recently by scientists to come up with a theory that seals the various holes in the current lightnning-earth theory. The big-bang theory is the start of the universe from a massive exlposion.

lol my bad, :P guess i wasnt paying attention. thx for the correction.

[Anonymous]

If you believe in God. Great.
If you don't believe in God. Great.
Each to their own.
God is better loved by the person that bought Him into theirs hearts on their own accord. Not those that were told to.

[methodman535]

in addition. As i said St. thomas's argument is accepted by the general philosophical community because it does NOT bring in any religious beliefs into the argument. it is purely logical. i dont feel like explaining it here, but i would suggest you read up on it when u get the time.


Ok I looked up St Thomas and his 5 ways and by no means is it any "proof" that god exists. All it is, is an argument or rather 5 arguments making 5 different points. Like all arguments, there are two sides. Yes, it takes the arguments to a different and higher level of philosophy on the theistic side but it doesnt prove a thing to me. You cannot prove god exists simply based on the premise that if he didnt then everything would be going around in a circle for all eternity in a series of interdependent chain reactions, or that it could never have started without god. Even though this sort of makes sense, ie "which came first, the chicken or the egg or the chicken farmer....why the chicken farmer of course!" it doesnt count with me because it really doesnt prove god exists since for one thing it doesnt define god except as an entity that is capeable of creating a sophisticated collection of matter, chemicals, rules and laws of science etc. Now having said that I am going to reiterate what I sensed to begin with, before even looking up St. Thomas, and that was simply that St Thomas and other "theists" like him do not have a completely open mind at all. Part of their "faith" in a higher being is driven by emotions. Fear of the unknown and of death, lust for the eternal afterlife blessed with all material needs, fear of overturning the mythological traditions of one's ancestors, pride in one's own folklore etc etc. These emotions are the driving forces behind the philosophy and "logic" of the religious theist, their logic is simply the justifications and complex reasoning that they candywrap their core DESIRES in, its their justifications of what they truely WANT to believe in deep down inside because its the most attractive little scenario of the universe and they just cant stand the idea of a harsher reality. Emotion is shaping logic here quite heavily in the case of tommy boy paradoxically...even though he pushed his side of the argument to its zenith of that time.


Also i do believe in God, but i do not subscribe to any religion. i am not against atheism. but i feel that it is more logical to believe in an all powerful being or power that created the universe. The religions may be man made, but the power still exists.
i dont feel that the big-bang and other such theories are too believable. i feel there are too many variables. I just dont believe that if lightning struck at just the right time, at just the right place, when just the right configuration of chemicals were there, then something was created(that is the basic premise of the big bang theory as it relates to the creation of life is it not) that seems tooo far fetched given the complexities of the various organisms scattered throughout this universe.


Well I will be honest and admit that I think the big bang theory is ridiculous. By itself. People who follow it, and there are a lot of them in the scientific community from what I understand, adhere to it almost religiously as a theist would adhere to a cult/religion. There is a couple of important differences though. Firstly, this is a theory and its put forth by people who dont claim ti was handed down to them by a divine entity. Secondly, the admit its just a theory that is subject to refute...ie blasphemy is welcomed. Thirdly, it doesnt claim to be the alpha and omega of all the history of the universe. I dont know much about it except that its based on emperical evidence, mainly the velocity between different gravity wells that is measured through astronomy and perhaps that is how they extrapolated the center of gravity of everything in the universe to some particular point, into which everything will collapse one day after it has finished expanding. Having ridiculed it, I would have to say that this theory is nowhere near as unbelievable as the cockadoodledoo stories of the bible and noah's ark and how god wasnt able to stop a tiny flood and crammed all living creatures into a mangy wooden dhow(except cats....always made me wonder if cats were left out of the ark then how did they reestablish themselves on the planet after the flood). :lol: Ok, I never really bothered wondering that I just dismissed the whole fable for what I thought it was worth. I mean come on....you cant even compare the two stories here, the big bang theory may not be perfect but its a lot more mature and realistic than anything else put forward by organised religion for the masses.


Oh and just so you know from what i have read about christianity(in response to St. thomas). it does not exclude those of other religions. Certain people may say that christianity is the only way to "heaven", but i dont believe christ says it. He says those who do the "will" of God will get into heaven, not everyone who cries "God" or "Jesus" and "claims" them as their savior. but those that live in service to their fellow man. that is what i see is common in all religions. service is greatness. humility is greatness. this is what i see when i see Gandhi, when i see Mother Theresa, when i see various others who lived their life in service.


Now as far as what you observe as being the common traits among all religions: service to others, humility....well, that isnt exactly any kind of proof of god's existence. Looking at mother teresa, she took care of the hungry and the lepers in calcutta right? Well...the way that I see it she was just a pawn in the big game of catholic world domination. She probably felt good about helping others because we all do, well most of us do just as we feel bad if we have to hurt others, its a FEELING. Her whole life was driven by emotion, the desire to do what she thought was her divine duty but in reality she was also being exploited by the papacy. She was a public relations pawn of the catholics. Now think about this, during the 50s the USSR used to send out doctors and engineers and scientists to help out third world countries and hopefully to "convert" them from capitalism and feudalism towards communism. Now the communists were mostly atheists, certainly their scientists and engineers that were out helping others probably had a higher proportion of atheists but as history has shown they did love helping others out and derived pleasure from their contributions even though they were on a payroll as was mother theresa....so you could just as well argue that their humanistic desire and efforts to help others in need would disprove the existence of god since they were atheists.


Anyways the title of this thread was did man make god or did god make man. When I say man made god, what I mean is that:

1) man defined the meaning of god and many times gave him attributes and also attributed certain events in history to "his will" almost likening it to a humanlike will. So basically man claims to be created by a being that man defined himself but pretends not to have defined by citing angels and holy books as the source of this information aka mythology.

2) more importantly man created the fairy stories of the various religions and made them part of the mythology of religion. Such as these stories about a divine voice asking abraham to sacrifice his son and then changing his mind, or of god suddenly deciding to interrupt what he was doing and part the sea for moses to escape the pharoah's army. man also took existing mythology and warped newer religions around it. I have come across claims that mideasterners and bedeuin arabs in particular used to worship a moon god and thats where the lunar calender came from, and that the kabaah is actually a meteor which happens to be a chunk off the moon(dunno about that one) and the original moonworshipers used to worship the rock since it was a piece of the moon.

3) God may or may not have made man. Its hard to say since its so hard to even define or quantify god. But assuming god did make man Im pretty sure that due to all the conflicts between all the religions, all of them are merely man;s attempts to explain reality and existence and of course theres a good measure of politics thrown into religion too, undeniably.

So yeah god probably made man too but man sure as hell did try making gods consistently throughout history.

[Ragga_NZ]

Why:

Someone to blame = "god wanted it that way"
An excuse to give up = "It's in gods hands now"
A form of control = "be a good boy or u'll go n burn in hell"

This is an insult on the folks who do believe in God but not for any of those reasons...but whatever. You're entitled to what you wanna believe.

I feel strongly bout some of the things i say. This is one of them. I don't hate/condem religious people purely cos they believe in something i don't.
I just dislike the manner in which religion is used (more often that not) as a cop out and .

When you're 6 yr old cousin tells u you're going to hell cos u don't believe in jesus but by 9 wants to grow up to be just like u, you get to thinkin. I never blamed him, he is after all just a child who picks things up from his surroundings. But for a child to have this idea in his mind "believe in jesus or go to hell". I believe in freedom of thought, this sounds like blackmail.

Time and again i've heard people who've not spent anytime studying before a test saying they prayed last night for a pass. I mean come on.

I don't mean to offend anyone. But the q i answered was whether "man made god or god made man" and i answered giving my reasons

[methodman535]

I see no point in replying to your opinions regarding religion - to me it reads as a big conjecture that could be interpreted in two ways. One says God gave us the scriptures [insert religious proof here], and the other says god didn't give it to us because I wasn't there to witness it [insert the common "man created god as a false sense of security" argument here].

But just as a FYI, here's an essay written that logically "proves" the existence of god.

taken from http://www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1383

This article may prove the existence of SOMETHING out there by a process of elimination however it doesnt even begin to prove the authenticity of any organised religion. All these pseudo-philosopher theist types make so many seemingly logical and scientific arguements to support the existence of entities beyond the 5 senses but they stop dead in their tracks when it comes time to prove that ANY religion at all is not man made.

Here we have an interesting paradox. The theist has used organised thoughts and logical procedures to argue the reeasonable existence of a diety but they will stop cold when it comes time to apply the same principles to prove the authenticity of mass religion!

You can observe this comedy amongs the e-mullahs on this forum and e-christians in other places on the net including here, the person will put on a philosopher's cap as they attempt to disprove the non-existence of any diety or creator or "force" but then suddenly they drop the act and go back to quoting holy books.

[Luxifero]

You seem to be debating Ontology; typical St.Thomas Aquinas and Descartian circulatory logic.

It makes me light headed.

We define God to be X,
We can conceive of X,
Therefore God must exist.

:(

[methodman535]

You seem to be debating Ontology; typical St.Thomas Aquinas and Descartian circulatory logic.

It makes me light headed.

We define God to be X,
We can conceive of X,
Therefore God must exist.

:(

True. And the funny thing is we cant fully concieve of X to begin with. :rolleyes:

How can an ant fully concieve of the total nature of a human being? Its impossible! Therefore we cannot even begin to define the entirety that supposedly has to be god. But try explaining that to a fundie.

[desi_gunda]

You seem to be debating Ontology; typical St.Thomas Aquinas and Descartian circulatory logic.

It makes me light headed.

We define God to be X,
We can conceive of X,
Therefore God must exist.

:(

Dude How is it Descartian? Its only Aquinas' logic. Im keen to knw.

[bill]

This article may prove the existence of SOMETHING out there by a process of elimination however it doesnt even begin to prove the authenticity of any organised religion.

Wasn't meant to.

All these pseudo-philosopher theist types make so many seemingly logical and scientific arguements to support the existence of entities beyond the 5 senses but they stop dead in their tracks when it comes time to prove that ANY religion at all is not man made.

God is a concept that can be seperate from orgnaised religion. Perhaps you should learn to read better.

[bill]

You seem to be debating Ontology; typical St.Thomas Aquinas and Descartian circulatory logic.

It makes me light headed.

We define God to be X,
We can conceive of X,
Therefore God must exist.

:(

That wasn't the argument. Read.

[bill]

True. And the funny thing is we cant fully concieve of X to begin with. :rolleyes:

How can an ant fully concieve of the total nature of a human being? Its impossible! Therefore we cannot even begin to define the entirety that supposedly has to be god. But try explaining that to a fundie.

You don't need to concieve something in its entirety to know that 'it exists'. It's simple logical thinking, I don't see why it escapes your head so. We don't know everything about the force of gravity but we can empirically deduce its existence. We don't know everything about the mathematical infinity but we can logically deduce its existence. In the same way it makes more logical sense to believe in god than not. I don't see why you're making the leap to 'organised religion' here but it's very irrelevant, very injustified, and downright annoying. It's like me proving two plus two is four, and you saying - 'AH HAH, but shakespeare said that mathematics is weak!' Seriously - wtf? Make coherent arguments or don't make them.

[dr_sinister1001]

ThreeFiddy if you see no point in replying to my opinion then kindly stay out of the thread if you have nothing original to share. I could find 10 articles like that on google in less than 2 minutes, the whole point of this thread is to discuss, not to spam peoples posts with anything you find on the net. This isnt the "Serious Copy and Paste Skills" Forum or "Gigglicious Spamming" or whatever. :roll:


LoL

The irony is sickeningly unbearable.

:idea:

[Cunard]

LoL

The irony is sickeningly unbearable.

:idea:



:wiggle:

[desi_gunda]

You don't need to concieve something in its entirety to know that 'it exists'. It's simple logical thinking, I don't see why it escapes your head so. We don't know everything about the force of gravity but we can empirically deduce its existence. We don't know everything about the mathematical infinity but we can logically deduce its existence. In the same way it makes more logical sense to believe in god than not. I don't see why you're making the leap to 'organised religion' here but it's very irrelevant, very injustified, and downright annoying. It's like me proving two plus two is four, and you saying - 'AH HAH, but shakespeare said that mathematics is weak!' Seriously - wtf? Make coherent arguments or don't make them.
Spoken like a true rationalist. ( Not a bad thing)

[methodman535]

You don't need to concieve something in its entirety to know that 'it exists'. It's simple logical thinking, I don't see why it escapes your head so. We don't know everything about the force of gravity but we can empirically deduce its existence. We don't know everything about the mathematical infinity but we can logically deduce its existence. In the same way it makes more logical sense to believe in god than not. I don't see why you're making the leap to 'organised religion' here but it's very irrelevant, very injustified, and downright annoying. It's like me proving two plus two is four, and you saying - 'AH HAH, but shakespeare said that mathematics is weak!' Seriously - wtf? Make coherent arguments or don't make them.


Saying that "it exists" and understanding it in its entirety are two profoundly different accomplishments. Gravity is one of the most simple observations that one can make, in fact if you leave out Einsteinien complexities related to the four dimensional "fabric of space" and how different densities of particles create gravity wells then gravity becomes one of the simplest phenomena of Newtonian physics. Theres no comparison between the concept of gravity and the concept of a god. When you define gravity you do not define the inconcievable...you define just a very tiny comprehensible portion of the laws of the universe.

To concieve a god exists is one thing, but to begin to pretend to grasp the entirety of god's existence is just ridiculous. You cant compare it to anything like gravity, thats a very bad example you used.


Leaps to organized religion? I said "try explaining that to a fundie". The whole foundation of a fundementalist theist's doctrine is built on the quacky logic of "Well <insert scripture here> said god created the earth and universe but atheists say it happened by chance, its impossible to have just happened randomlytherefore the <scripture> is right". This kind of quack logic by which relgions are justified cannot be compared with the logical and methodical derivation of the principle of gravity either. I think its your argument that lacks coherence not my criticisms.

[sharthap]

methodman, just curious....are you atheistic, agnostic, or religious? i

if atheistic or agnostic, whats your version of the existance of the universe?

if religious, which religion do u follow?

personally, i was born hindu but dont really follow religion as such. i'm influenced by vedic philosophy (which is NOT a religion), I do believe in God, and i do believe in the Big Bang.

[desi_gunda]

Please describe you definition of Big Bang.

[sharthap]

well, my version of the big bang is as follows:

the complete matter-enerygy of the universe was concentrated into one infinitesimal partical (singularity) which started expanding in an explosion. This is the moment where time for the current universe began (about 15 billion years ago, based on the spectrum analysis of cosmic blue shift doppler effect). Hence whatever preceded the big bang is irrelevent since although the 3 spatial dimensions existed (and maybe more, perhaps upto 10 or 24 dimensions, acc. to the string theory), the chronological dimension of time started anew (reseted, if you will) at the instant of the big bang.

the very first quarks were probably formed during the first few millionth billionths of a second as the energy condensed from pure superstrings into the most fundamental building blocks of matter. termperature continued to fall at a fantastic rate till it reaches a level where the 4 fundamental forces can begin to exert their effect, and the rules quantum mecahnics come into play. the conditions at this point were right for the formation of the very first electrons and photons. Further cooling caused lumping of quarks into neutrons and protons. Another hundreths of a a second later, the ionized plasma and radiation become separable, resulting in the the massive decay of neutrons, allowing them to combine with protons to foem Deuterium (Hydrogen isotope), the combination of whose nuclei forms atoms of the very first noble element, Helium.

Fusion of helium nuclei later resulted in the formation of hydrogen. Ultimately, massive amounts of hydrogen were lumped together due to the gravitational force, causing immense pressure and heat, which triggered off fission reactions and the first stars were born. When these stars died out, they spewed out heavy elements (formed via countless fission and fusion reactions, and radioactive processes within the core of the stars) and these heavy elements formed the building blocks of planets, moons, and solar systems. New stars constantly replaced the older ones, and the cycle continued.

Ultimately, either the nuclear energy causing the universe to expand will be overwhelmed by the total gravitational force of the entire matter of the universe, resulting in a contracting universe that will end in the fiery Big Crunch, or the nuclear energy will overwhelm the gravitational force causing the entire matter of the universe to decay into a state of minimum energy (at which point entropy will reach its absolute maximum), and the universe will die a cold, dark entropy death.

Although scientists currently believe that the latter alternative is probably the correct one (based on the calculation and comparison of the complete nuclear energy of the observable universe with the complete gravitaional force of the same), i personally believe in the big crunch. The reason for this bias is that the big crunch would lead to the reformation of the singularity, and the resetting of time, which may start off the entire cycle all over again, this going on forever. This would be consistent with the Vedic account of the formation of the universe. The Vedic philosophy tells of the universe being created from a sungular particle, the 'Anu' (singularity??) around 8 billion years ago (almost exactly half the time calculated via spetrum analysis), and talks about the end of the universe in 'Pralay', which will kick off the cycle all over again, with this entire process being eternal.

I am highly infulenced by the Vedic philosophy because it has emerged from the personal experiences of sages who were able to attain the highest levels of spirituality, during which they medited and attained higher states of consciousness, and were hence able to seek out the answers which lay naturally within their own selves (as lie these answers within every individual). The Vedic philosophy hence is one of self discovery, one of finding God within oneself, and not of something which was sent to inferior humans via prophets. It is perhaps the philosophy closest to science because it is based on rational deduction and logical scrutiny of empirical observations.

[desi_gunda]

Funny thing is, hindu cosmology states theories very similar to what you just mentioned. Except they say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, hence they universe cannot be created or destroyed, to which it concludes that the universe has always existed and undergroes big bangs and big crunches repeatedly forever and the universe is a mere projection of God, since Hindu's believe God isnt a seperate being.

[cool_patelhere]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.

There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god.

dude, there is a word called karma. every action has a reaction, but not if the person disconnet himself from his materialistic desire ( monk).
fire is a heat that kills the germs, u go to hell till your bad (germs) karma are burned. u go to heaven till you have not enjoyed all your good karma. you come back to earth because u have desire to enjoy life. heaven, hell, and earth are portion of materialistic world. so pain and happines both are in such life till u think something high, for example a monk's life which gives a place better than heaven.
being born as anything other than a human is not a disgusting life. a life of insect animals birds or watever, has same life a human lives ( fear, pain, death, happiness, loss n gain and so on) just the life period of going through such things are different. something great difference between a human and them are that, they follow their path truely while human corrupts their path.


about worshiping god before themself. u actully have no knoweldge about any religion, so u have no idea about it. its said that a person serving others from their heart also serves themselves wordly happiness. in giving is also a reciving, otherwise there would be not giving.
a person starts to belive in a religion because he is born in that family that belive in so religion. beliving in his family's religion shows respect for their parents favour to them. and thus worshiping that god shows worshiping his parents desire which the person gain a better parents. u see that giving has a great reward. life is not about self. even if it would be so ,no one would have a relationship and without a relationship u cannot share ( cannot give nor u could recive). and when u cannot give you cannot gain anything. you just become yourself. just you.
:)
religion has its own deep meaning. one cannot understand it untill learned about it. as you could not know its value.

[sharthap]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.


good post.

prepare to receive tons of more hackneyed religious rhetoric tho.

[Street_Scholar]

Man made god. Man made many gods. Many men made different gods. Theres 6 billion people in this world. They have about 10 different flavors of hallucinations which they like to call religions. Each one of these hallucinations or religions or whatever you wanna call them contradicts the others. In the 21st century, using simple logic its painfully obvious even to someone with an IQ of 50 that that because they all contradict each other theres only two possibilities:

1) One religion/hallucination is right and all the others are wrong.
2) All of them are made up of lies.

A religious person chooses option 1 even though it defies all logic. Of course, this is an emotional decision by this "religious" person. Fear, guilt, selfishness, hope and laziness of the mind is what help him make the choice. This EMOTIONAL choice is made by the person deep inside the mind and then the mind warps "logic" to make itself accept the hallucination. The mind lies to itself and the person actually thinks they have made a logical and rational choice.

A non-religious person such as an atheist or agnostic or just a casual believer in the supernatural would go with option 2. There is no fear of burning in eternal hellfire or being reincarnated as a cockroach buried deep in the mind from childhood brainwashing, or it has been brought to the surface and expelled. There is no guilt of not pleasing a fictitious god, or shirking ones divinely commanded "duty" by worshipping or prostating oneself before any kind of god. There is no selfish desire to secure a place in "heaven" with 72 virgins or a reincarnation as a playboy millionaire. There is no laziness of the mind when it comes to challenging historical conceptions of religion. Being completely or at least partly free of the EMOTIONAL tendency to want to believe in some kind of a god or religion...this kind of person will not buy into religion at all.



Just my two cents :) and I think we see more and more of the second type of person in modern times because all the major religions are old...technology has advanced so much that many descrepencies are visible in religion. When most of the worlds major religions came out thousands of years ago....they were a close to perfect hallucination because at that time science could not challenge religion because science WAS religion. Man designed religion to include all the science that was known at the time so fewer people suspected they were being fed fiction.


What it really comes down to is about humbling yourself. Atheists refuse to do this; they hate the fact that there is an energy far more superior then them. Atheists live in a false-sense of reality, by denying the existence of god they make themselves believe there isn’t a god so they do not have to be held-responsible for their actions. God challenges humans and says look around and if you’re humble and submit yourself to god you will see the reality.

This life is a test for us; many atheists will say if there is a god why doesn’t he show himself? This is like going for a test and saying why, don’t we just get the paper with all the answers to it, however it doesn’t work this way. If we pass this test if life and we submit to the will of god and humble ourselves – god has promised a reward for those who heed to his message and we are promised eternal-life. Everyone is given free-will, we make our own paths and it’s up to us for believing or not believing.