User:Aurora-irelandis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 GOD miscellaneous

Before you look at this, it helps if u percieve life to be a test(survival of the fittest), and that this is either a product of god or an amalgamation of human hysteria, and to pass this test you must preserve your relationship with god to survive to the afterlife

If there is a (creator) God it is going to be more intricate than any of its creations(the universe and all in it) and if life is a test then it is not going to be easy(we have to evolve our minds as we need to evolve to be more like this god, and we must strike a balance between what is the result of humans and of God)

I would suggest that god created(along with all other intricacies) the creation versus evolution debate(indirectly, by the idea of survival of the fittest in and the different religions) thus giving people a chance to work in sync to evolve their ideas,to see if they could be harmonious together and incorporate ideas on certain areas based on how logical they are in that specific incident,again testing people and their capacity to think, and a realisation of this is a reward for using your mind,thus human progress is possible, fundamentals and contempt between these individuals will always jeopardise this... theism,deism,etc (without one religion) are an instance whereby we can incorporate various sets of ideas on god into our own and survive( the fittest)...if God did create all things in such detail, like the smallest living organisms in such detail, to evolution,philosophy,the cosmos, and God created us to evolve that is perfectly viable, we are a minor factor in the universe, but a significant catalyst, eg, it (evolution)could have been done to show something simple that all animals are equal,evident from the immense detail god went into,and the time in which it took for evolution to take place highlights the devotion god has to his creations, but the idea of evolution has been central to philosophical debate and human dynamics, a catalyst. god created us instinctive and the very idea of god has taken various perceptions throughout the eras, not because it was a creation of the human mind but because god was letting us know of its being(through instinct),and the various perceptions have had a role to play in our development and can be adapted to the world of today as it is our test to see if we can look beyond the ism we are brought up in,to incorporate these different perceptions of god to see the truth and acknowledge just how complex our creator is, we as individuals are tested like we are in masses to see if we can work in sync,incorporating the most logical suggestions to develop a lasting relationship with god. society as we can see is constantly changing and if god created the world through the big bang as some suggest then it is representative of gods plan for us, with the universe said to be expanding until finally it will reach its limit and then disintegrate,like humans and the human mind we have to reach our potential as gods creations,to be like it, this i feel is why(if god created jesus more than human) to show the stage we can evolve to, to be more like god(or jesus), to act against god as a natural force, puts our very existence in doubt(after life), by subscribing to ANY one particular set of beliefs you are unable to discover the intricacies and incorporate the created ideas to discover what our creator's really like(that includes dismissing god entirely or arguing that god definetly made the world in a week) humans were created in the image of god(like is recorded in some religious texts)> my perception of this that we wer created with a great potential, with the ability to create great things ourselves, we wer given the capacity to think and have evolved to a stage wer we can now see to a greater extent how/why god created us the way it did,in immense detail and devotion,it is merely part of the test of life for us to use our mind to come to a realisation of such intricacies, our mind,ideas,etc can be adapted to modern day society to highlight this purpose, it is all an intricate plan reflective of the most trivial of universial scenarios, skeptics may percieve it in...what about freewill?...humans have to come to this realisation if they are to survive(make decisions,this is freewill), the perceptions of god(and even gods) all over the world throughout the ages were a natural force on human beings,(as opposed to a creation of the human mind) which were part of a greater plan which resulted from the creation of christianity,islam,evolution perceptions mind, a force which is part of the test to see if these human creations could look beyond one particular idea creation of God(isms) so to evolve they needed to incorporate the best and most suitable ideas(allowed only through theism)

if god is the universe, and can manifest itself to be different realities within that universe, being the natural law of the universe, i doubt must obey the laws

God is the creator of the human mind, whereas logic and reason are creations of the human mind(that really do not exist,like god does not 'exist' by virtue that to exist u must be physically definable, unless like spinoza you believe god and the universe are the same, then god does exist)

it was created for the fittest to survive, christians,muslims,atheists etc, all have had their role in developing each others ideas(by challenging each other), making our faith in god greater if you look at the intricacies, but it is a test of human beings to work in sync and admit that some of the ideas of our grouping are wrong, we have evolved to a stage where we should realise gods intricacies take in various ideas, the historical books, such as the quran give us ideas on what gods like,simple guidelines, and like its creationists test to accept evolution,etc. it is a test of the skeptics to recognise the content of such books as history...this is why atheism or any ONE religion would create a paradox,as u completely deny the contrast, this is our freewill to realise this...god may be intervening(to make the test more complex) but will not do it for us, created in the image of god, with potential. we will be judged,i feel not only on whether we believe in god or not, but instead by how we act, thus i wont say all atheists will go to hell or all believers will go to heaven, our purpose is to challenge each other, making our ideas stronger. to survive we cant be critical of evryone elses ideas, simple.

People must realise what is a product of god, and what's a product of humans, eg men,women and children starve in africa today because the british and continental european powers colonised africa, taking their important minerals, borne out of their own greed, this is nothing to do with god, this same god is giving us the opportunity to fix this!!yet people stop believing in it, because they want god to come save us all,or give us a sign(i admit, this is a christian failure) you cant pray asking god for something as this is a test and you havebeen given the potential to do things for yourself!!

humans have constantly condoned their evil actions,through not only religion,(for people who blame religion for all wars...)

is it charles darwins fault for the holocaust?,because hitler distorted the idea of survival of the fittest, in his own evil mind to condone the savage murder of millions of jews?( if no, this shows hypocracy from such atheists) humans are to blame for genocide,etc.

religions and atheism,etc are fine in the hands of reasonable people, its in the hands of bad people that we should be worried about, a world without these one track ideas is needed( a godless society would work no better than the current one, we gotta see that your always gonna get bad people, who by their actions will disturb potentially perfect dynamics, ie, getting rid of the idea of god wont stop america and britain,etc going to iraq for money and oil, murdering innocent civilians in the process. if you REALLY recognise and obey the christian morality,as either its a product of god or evolution, that we have it, things like the 10 commandments should be truly followed, if so, there would be no/less killing(this is part of religions validity)

people have to realise, that humans are just like other animals, no better, and should not assume superiority, all creatures were created in great detail, and we are no more important than things such as cockroaches,eg, as the cockroach can survive two weeks without food, two days after its head being cut off, and it is immune to radiation.

baruch spinozas idea on god is logical,

Pantheism literally means "God is All" and "All is God". It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'. everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do. The argument for the single substance runs as follows: 1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence. 2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute. Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2] 3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute). 4. Substance cannot be caused. Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused. 5. Substance is infinite. Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite. Conclusion: There can only be one substance. Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances. Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as one and the same. The body and the mind are both comprised of the universal substance, and no difference exists between them. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part.

Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more "adequate" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism in as much as both philosophies sought to fulfil a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can only be displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:The natural world is infinite. Good and evil are definitions of Humans not nature. Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine. All rights are derived from the State. Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animals' status in nature.

"Basically...out of all the ridiculous religion stories—which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is..."yeah...there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here 'just 'cause...just 'cause". That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever- Trey parker, the genius behind south park

The question asked by some fundamental theists,etc "What came before the Big Bang?" is meaningless, Stephen hawking compared it to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?"

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity- Carl sagan

(i agree with this analogy but i pray in gratitude)

'Rest, or absence of motion, is not merely relative. Actually, for Toland, rest is a special case of motion. When there is a conflict of forces, the body that is apparently at rest is influenced by as much activity and passivity as it would be if it were moving'.- John toland

everything could be divided among bodies, minds, and eternal separate substances. The indivisible substrate or constituent of bodies is matter (yle); of minds or souls, intellect (nous); and of eternal separate substances, God (Deus). These three, matter, intellect, and God, are actually one and the same. Consequently all things, material, intellectual, and spiritual, have one and the same essence — God.- David of dinant

Philosopher Blaise Pascal claimed that without God, people would only be able to create obstacles and overcome them in an attempt to escape boredom. These token victories would ultimately become meaningless, since people would eventually die, and this was good enough reason not to become an atheist

The claim that atheism requires faith or unproven assumptions is a common argument leveled against atheists of all stripes. In this form of argument, critics of atheism typically employ the term "faith" in the sense often employed by atheists themselves, meaning a "blind" or unwarranted belief. Faith, often taken to mean, "religious faith", does not inherently involve religion; i.e having faith in the colour of the sky, or the word of a weather-reporter is not religious.

Some strong atheists argue that, since they see the burden of proof as being upon theism, they are under no obligation to offer arguments that seek to actively disprove theism. Instead, strong atheism is a default position, like disbelief in Santa Claus, that they feel ought to be held unless and until that burden of proof is shouldered. However, weak atheists and agnostics feel that neither theism nor strong atheism are a proper default position to be taken and hence labelling both theism's and strong atheism's calls for proof to be argumentum ad ignoratiam.

...too many atheists see the freethought and Humanist movement as a revolution, an opportunity to wage war on religion. As a result, an epidemic of antipathy has battered an otherwise inspiring veneer. Many outsiders—both nonbelievers and believers—who might otherwise find a naturalistic, secular perspective or philosophy of life worth exploring, see the fanciful crusade of many atheists to "save" humanity from the "scourge" of religion in the same light they view religious fanatics who zealously seek converts.- Jeff nall

instead of proclaiming war against religion, atheists in the USA would benefit much more by working together with those in religion who are also committed to reason and science to counter the political power of the Christian right. Ridiculing the beliefs of others, he writes, is not only strategically unpalatable, but is also seen by some, including within the Humanist movement, as a form of prejudice.-jeff nall

Some critics also claim that Dawkins and those like him tend in their public statements to address religion in only its most superstitious and orthodox incarnations. Religions of the metaphysical or Spinozist variety are typically not addressed, and religions with an atheist philosophy (Buddhism is often cited) do not receive the same dismissive treatment as that received by monotheistic or supernaturalist traditions.

This question can be asked to both sects of fundamentalists(atheist and religious)(its from a physics textbook and can be used as an analogous to the universe/god question)

Why does the sun shine?

The fundamental christian may respond, perhaps god placed it there to keep us warm.

The physicist will likely know more about radiation from the sun, its temperature, structure, and elements from which it was made. These, however say nothing about the purpose of the sun. physics tells us what the sun is and how it comes to shine, and stops at that. we are living at a time when orbiting telescopes send us images of the universe as it appeared soon after the big bang and theoretical physicists regularly claim to be 'working on a theory of everything', knowing everything may rule out some possibilities, but it doesn't provide a moral framework for human life or a purpose for existence. On the other hand the physicist might say that the sun shines because of nuclear fusion and that the energy released is radiated into space as electromagnetic waves. What he/or she has really done is explain how the sun works, not why.(the unanswerable question is just that, so its not that one is right or wrong)

PANDEISM:

Pandeism (Greek πάν, 'pan' = 'all' and Latin deus = God, in the sense of deism), is a term used at various times to describe religious beliefs. Since at least as early as 1859, it has delineated syncretist concepts incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical to the universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly "the belief that God precedes the universe and is the universe's creator, [and] that the universe is currently the entirety of God",[1] with some adding the contention that "the universe will one day coalesce back into a single being, God"

The pandeistic universe is just as the universe described in naturalistic pantheism, with the distinction that the belief necessarily encompasses a sentient God that existed before the formation of the universe. Panentheism also suggests a universe designed by a sentient deity, and composed of matter derived from that deity. The belief systems part on the point that panentheism asserts that God is greater than the universe, and therefore continues a separate existence alongside it, while pandeism asserts that everything that was God became incorporated into the universe.

Because "Pandeists believe all consciousness, in all life, to be fragments of God's awareness"[30] Such a God may not consciously interact with the material universe, but might still exerts a latent influence over the development of the physical universe, and the evolution of things within it. Because man is part of the material universe, and therefore composed of remnants of God, it could then be possible for God's energy to be tapped by an individual.

As with man's ability to release the power of the atom in an atomic bomb or nuclear reactor, every human mind could conceivably access and release some portion of the power or the knowledge of God, perhaps by simply realizing their connection with the universe through meditation. If this is valid, religious figures such as Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha, and others may have been able to perform those miracles attributed to them by tapping into this infinite source of energy.

To the Hindu, for example, God didn't create the universe, but God became the universe. Then he forgot that he became the universe. Why would God do this? Basically, for entertainment. You create a universe, and that in itself is very exciting. But then what? Should you sit back and watch this universe of yours having all the fun? No, you should have all the fun yourself. To accomplish this, God transformed into the whole universe. God is the Universe, and everything in it. But the universe doesn't know that because that would ruin the suspense. The universe is God's great drama, and God is the stage, the actors, and the audience all at once. The title of this epic drama is "The Great Unknown Outcome." Throw in potent elements like passion, love, hate, good, evil, free will; and who knows what will happen? No one knows, and that is what keeps the universe interesting. But everyone will have a good time. And there is never really any danger, because everyone is really God, and God is really just playing around

Reverend Natalia Kita,[44] classifies her beliefs as "transcendental pandeism," a phrase to which she assigns the following meaning:

God not only is, always was, and always will be the universe, but that the Universe is contained within God, and God transcends that which we know as the Universe. I also believe that all living beings contain the knowledge/wisdom of God/the Universe within them, if only they open their minds to it. I view God not so much as a being, but as a force of pure spirit and energy, containing all the knowledge/wisdom there is, and sharing it with all.

2001 Scott Adams published God's Debris: A Thought Experiment, in which Adams explicitly set down his own variation of pandeism, a radical form of kenosis. Adams surmised that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and would have to end that existence in order to complete his knowledge. Adams asks about God, "would his omnipotence include knowing what happens after he loses his omnipotence, or would his knowledge of the future end at that point?"[26] He proceeds from this question to the following analysis:

A God who knew the answer to that question would indeed know everything and have everything. For that reason he would be unmotivated to do anything or create anything. There would be no purpose to act in any way whatsoever. But a God who had one nagging question—what happens if I cease to exist?—might be motivated to find the answer in order to complete his knowledge. ... The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way. And since only the challenge of self-destruction could interest an omnipotent God, it stands to reason that we... are God's debris.[27]

Adams' God exists now as a combination of the smallest units of energy of which the universe is made (many levels smaller than quarks), which Adams called "God Dust", and the law of probability, or "God's debris", hence the title. An unconventional twist introduced by Adams proposes that God is in the process of being restored not through some process such as the Big Crunch, but because humankind itself is becoming God

ATHEISM=The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true.

Commonly in an Argument from Personal Incredulity or Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true. Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven

the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case. This is not the same as arguing against something that can, by its nature, never be proven

[ Argument from personal incredulity Two common versions of the argument from personal incredulity are:

"I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is (or claims to be) unable or unwilling to fully consider that it might be true, or is unwilling to believe evidence which does not support her or his preferred view.) "That's not what people say about this; people instead agree with what I am saying." (Here the person is asserting that a proposition must be inaccurate because the opinion of "people in general" is claimed to agree with the speaker's opinion, without offering specific evidence in support of the alternative view.) This is also called argumentum ad populum. An argument from personal incredulity is the same as an argument from ignorance only if the person making the argument has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as "evidence" that the alternative scenario is true (i.e., the person lacks relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).

Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. Here too, it is a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.

Burden of proof An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof. While this concept is discussed in the law section of this page, it is important to realize that establishing the burden of proof is important in other arenas as well. All logic follows from presuppositions (axiomatic statements, see axiom). These presuppositions are not provable but are assumed as true

God-of-the-gaps- Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelical lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain — "gaps which they will fill up with God" — and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

success in one area of inquiry does not invalidate other areas. The burden of proof is on those who would exclude a particular kind of experience from being a source of knowledge

The unmoved mover by aristole)

The unmoved mover is a philosophical concept described by Aristotle as the first cause that set the universe into motion. As is implicit in the name, the "unmoved mover" is not moved by any prior action. In his book Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. The Unmoved Mover is also referred to as the Prime Mover.

Aristotle's argument for the existence of the unmoved mover progresses as follows:[citation needed]

There exists movement in the world. Things that move were set into motion by something else. If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen. Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement. From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved. From 4, there must be an unmoved mover

Aristotle begins by describing substance, of which he says there are three types: the sensible, which is subdivided into the perishable, which belongs to physics, and the eternal, which belongs to “another science.” He notes that sensible substance is changeable and that there are several types of change, including quality and quantity, generation and destruction, increase and diminution, alteration, and motion. Change occurs when one given state becomes something contrary to it: that is to say, what exists potentially comes to exist actually. Therefore, “a thing [can come to be], incidentally, out of that which is not, [and] also all things come to be out of that which is, but is potentially, and is not actually.” That by which something is changed is the mover, that which is changed is the matter, and that into which it is changed is the form.

Substance is necessarily composed of different elements. The proof for this is that there are things which are different from each other and that all things are composed of elements. Since elements combine to form composite substances, and because these substances differ from each other, there must be different elements: in other words, “b or a cannot be the same as ba.”

Before you look at this, i percieve it to strengthen your theism if you percieve life to be a test, and to pass this test you must preserve your relationship with god(through the persecution,etc) to survive to the afterlife,

If there is a God it is going to be more intricate than any of its creations(the universe and all in it) and if life is a test then it is not going to be easy(i feel why would we be created to sit around and do nothing,we have to evolve our minds and strike a balance between what is the result of humans and of God)

Tikkun olam (תיקון עולם) is a Hebrew phrase which translates to "repairing the world." It is important in Judaism and is often used to explain the Jewish concept of social justice. In some explanations, the more mitzvot that are performed, the closer the world will be towards perfection. Some (religious) Jews believe that acts of tikkun olam will either trigger or fulfill the prophesied coming of the Moshiach (messiah) or messianic age (the World to Come). It is also used in the Mishnah, in the phrase mip'nei tikkun olam ("because of tikkun olam") to indicate that a practice is followed not because it is Biblical law but because it helps avoid negative social consequences. (See Mishnah, tractate Gittin, chapter 4 for several examples.

Panentheism is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal morality. The term is closely associated with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the works of Herakleitos, which pervades the cosmos and whereby all things were made. Why therefore is it suggested that a sub atomic piece of matter could have existed without the existence of the universe, yet some say god cannot transcend within the universe, as an immortal being surely he could defy ‘Physics and logic’ and could exist independantly of what is visible/probable to humans.

In philosophy of mind, dualism is a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical. Ideas on mind/body dualism originate at least as far back as Plato and Aristotle and deal with speculations as to the existence of an incorporeal soul which bore the faculties of intelligence and wisdom. Plato and Aristotle maintained, for different reasons, that people's "intelligence" (a faculty of the mind or soul) could not be identified with, or explained in terms of, their physical body All god does is divine, human emotion is the only thing that tells us that something is bad,and the perceptions made shape what is considered ‘right or wrong’ in contrast, all humans do is not devine,good and evil exists, this is why i percieve the idea of morality resulting from the historical biography of jesus,the bible exists in the bible, so human beings potential to evolve their thoughts freely is possible and are less likely to be deterred

WATCHMAKER ANALOGY- X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally. Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being. Therefore, God exists. X usually stands for the universe, the evolution process, humankind, a given animal species, or a particular organ like the eye or capability like language in humans. X may also stand for the fundamental constants of the universe like physical constants and physical law. Sometimes this argument is also based on the anthropic principle that these constants seem tuned specifically to allow intelligent life "as we know it" to evolve. One can also leave the question of the attributes of a hypothesized "Designer" completely open, yielding the following simple formulation:

Complexity implies a designer. The universe is highly complex. Therefore, the universe has a Designer. A concise and whimsical teleological argument was offered by G.K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."

The TAG is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that the Christian God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. R. L. Dabney shed some light on what is meant by "impossibility of the contrary" when he wrote:

A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true. (Systematic Theology, sect. 1, chap. 6, lect. 8[1]). Cornelius Van Til likewise wrote:

We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. . . . It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. Therefore, the TAG differs from Thomistic and Evidentialist arguments, which posit the probable existence of a God in order to avoid an infinite regress of causes or motions, to explain life on Earth, and so on. The TAG posits the necessary existence of a particular God in order for human knowledge and experience to be possible at all. The TAG argues that, because the triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits his character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in humans), human knowledge and experience are possible.

An example of the TAG can be formulated with regard to moral absolutes. The TAG asserts an omnibenevolent God whose own character is the basis for the predication of right and wrong to any thought or action. In creation he has equipped man to be a moral being, and in his self-revelation he reveals how man should act, and commands him to do so. Thus, man has an absolute standard of morality by which to condemn evil thoughts and actions (or commend good ones).

It is argued that the moral relativist, by contrast, cannot condemn theft, rape or genocide (nor commend generosity, marriage, or the preservation of life) without exposing his reliance on the very assumption of absolute morality that he claims to reject. But the relativist does make such value judgments, often about the very teachings contained in the Bible. No moral condemnations (or exhortations), it is argued, can be accounted for from the relativist's own worldview — instead they are derived from unconsciously "borrowed capital" from Christianity, which proves the truth of the Christian worldview.

Internal consistency — The statements made by the worldview do not contradict one another or otherwise lead to internal contradictions. Logical Positivism fails this test by its claim that “A statement is literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable,” a statement that is not itself verifiable analytically or empirically. Another example is the claim by moral relativists that absolutes do not exist, which is itself an absolute claim

Nature of God:

Thomas Aquinas felt that the existence of God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five rational proofs for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinquae viae, or the "Five Ways."

Concerning the nature of God, Thomas Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:

God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same

Argument from religious experience:

There are compelling reasons for considering at least some religious experiences to point to and validate spiritual realities that exist in a way that transcends any material manifestations. According to Materialism, nothing exists in a way that transcends its material manifestations. According to Classical Theism in general, and Christianity in particular, God endows Humans with the ability to have spiritual experiences and to perceive, albeit imperfectly, such spiritual realities[1] and these spiritual realities exist in a way that transcends any material manifestations. Therefore, to the extent that premise (1) is accepted, Theism is more plausible than Materialism. Points 2, 3 and 4 are relatively un-controversial, and the argument is formally valid, so discussion focuses on the premise.

Suggested reasons for accepting the premise The principal arguments for the premise are:

Very substantial numbers of "ordinary" people report having had such experiences. Such experiences are reported in almost all known cultures. Although such reported experiences may not all correspond to an objective reality, they are stong enough prima facie evidence that very compelling arguments to the contrary would be needed to cancel them out. These experiences often have very significant effects on people's lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments. It is hard to imagine an evolutionary benefit in having these experiences if they are all, or mostly, false. These experiences often seem very real to the people involved, and are quite often reported as being shared by a number of people. Although mass delusions are not inconceivable, one needs compelling reasons for invoking this as an explanation, since for example scientific experiments are typically witnessed by many fewer people. Swinburne suggests that, as two basic principles of rationality, we ought to believe that things are as they seem unless and until we have evidence that they are mistaken (principle of credulity), and that those who do not have an experience of a certain type ought to believe others who say that they do in the absence of evidence of deceit or delusion (principle of testimony) and thus, although if you have a strong reason to disbelieve in the existence of God you will discount these experiences, in other cases such evidence should count towards the existence of God

Pascals wager:

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

Pascal begins with the premise that the existence or non-existence of God is not provable by human reason, since the essence of God is "infinitely incomprehensible." Since reason cannot decide the question, one must "wager," either by guessing or making a leap of faith. Agnosticism on this point is not possible, in Pascal's view, for we are already "embarked," effectively living out our choice.

We only have two things to stake, our "reason" or "knowledge", and our "will" or "happiness". Since reason cannot decide the issue, and both options are equally unfounded in reason, we should decide it according to our happiness. This is accomplished by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God is. Pascal considers that there is "equal risk of loss and gain," a coin toss, since human reason is powerless to address the question of God's existence. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing," meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.

Pascal recognizes that the wagerer is risking something, namely his life on earth, by devoting it to one cause or another, but here he uses probabilistic analysis to show that it would be a wise wager, at the even odds he assumes, even if one were to gain only three lives at the risk of losing one. Considering that everyone is forced to wager and the potential gain is actually infinite life, it would be acting "stupidly" not to wager that God exists.

The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be expanded more fully, though it should be noted that Pascal did not address the last two possibilities explicitly in his account, nor did he mention hell.

You live as though God exists. If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing. You live as though God does not exist. If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite. If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing. With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).

Another way of portraying the Wager is as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix:

God exists (G) God does not exist (~G) Living as if God exists (B) +∞ (heaven) −N (none) Living as if God does not exist (~B) −∞ (hell) +N (none)

Given these values, the option of living as if God exists(B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B). In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is always greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B, regardless of the likelihood that God exists.

[edit] Many-way tie Given that the choice of wagering has an infinite return, then under a mixed strategy the return is also infinite. Flipping a coin and taking the wager based on the result would then have an infinite return, as would the chance that after rejecting the wager you end up taking it after all. The choice would then not be between zero reward (or negative infinite) and infinite reward, but rather between different infinite rewards.

[edit] Decision-theoretic arguments The above criticisms are addressed explicitly in a generalised decision-theoretic version of Pascal's argument, with probabilities interpreted in the Bayesian sense of expressing degrees of belief, and each option carrying certain utilities or payoffs.

This leads to the following matrix, where a, b, c and d are the utilities arising from each of the four options:

God exists (G) God does not exist (~G) Belief in God (B) a b Non-belief in God (~B) c d

The total utility for believing in God is then while the total utility for non-belief is , where is the probability of the existence of God. Belief in God is thus optimal in decision-theoretic terms for all if the values for the utilities satisfy the inequalities and . The first inequality requires that one considers a well-founded belief in God to have a higher utility than an ill-founded disbelief in God. However, the second inequality holds only if one regards the benefits of an ill-founded belief in God to be no less than those from a well-founded disbelief in God. This is patently a matter of personal choice. Many people maintain they do indeed get tangible benefits here and now from their belief in God, and that these exceed those that would accrue from not having such a belief (e.g. no requirement for regular observance of religious practices). On the other hand, many agnostics would argue the opposite case. The analysis shows atheists are not absolved from having to assess the utilities through setting ; they must also be confident that d > b.

This requirement for such an assessment of utilities suggests that Pascal's Wager should be regarded as a criterion by which the coherence of one's existing beliefs can be judged, rather than as a method of choosing what to believe. Blaise Pascal...proposed that we "wager" on the possibility of God's existence. If our gamble for God is right, we will win everything - happiness and eternal life. But nothing is lost if we turn out to be wrong. In other words it is better to live as if God exists and discover that He doesn't, than to live as if He doesn't exist and discover that He does!!!

Argument from love:

The deep relationship of theism in general, and Christianity in particular, and love goes back to the foundational documents.[1] In cultures where theism was taken for granted, the primacy and quality of love was used as an argument for the truth of Christianity.[2] However in modern times the (suggested) reality of love has become seen as an argument for the existence of God, as against materialism and reductionist forms of physicalism.

Tom Wright suggests that:

Materialist philosophy and scepticism has "paved our world with concrete, making people ashamed to admit that they have had profound and powerful 'religious' experiences".[3] The reality of Love in particular ("that mutual and fruitful knowing, trusting and loving which was the creator's intention" but which "we often find so difficult") and the whole area of human relationships in general, are another signpost pointing away from this philosophy to the central elements of the Christian story.[4] Wright contends both that the real existence of love is a compelling reason for the truth of theism and that the ambivalent experience of love, ("marriages apparently made in heaven sometimes end not far from hell") resonates particularly with the Christian account of fall and redemption.[5]

Paul Tillich suggested (in 1954) even Spinoza "elevates love out of the emotional into the ontological realm. And it is well known that from Empedocles and Plato to Augustine and Pico, to Hegel and Schelling, to Existentialism and depth psychology, love has played a central ontological role."[6] and that "love is being in actuality and love is the moving power of life"[7] and that an understanding of this should lead us to "turn from the naive nominalism in which the modern world lives".[8]

The theologian Michael Lloyd suggests that "In the end there are basically only two possible sets of views about the universe in which we live. It must, at heart, be either personal or impersonal... arbitrary and temporary[9] [or emerging] from relationship, creativity, delight, love The logical structure of the arguments Wright and Tillich and others are making is essentially as follows: (Premise/Observation) There are compelling reasons for considering love to exist in a way that transcends its physical manifestations.[11] If materialism (or reductionist physicalism) is true, nothing exists in a way that transcends its physical manifestations.[12] If Classical Theism in general, and Christianity in particular[13] is true, love is a quality of God and therefore exists in a way that transcends its physical manifestations. Therefore, to the extent that premise (1) is accepted, this increases the plausibility of Theism by comparison with materialism (or reductionist physicalism). The principal arguments for the premise are:

We have a strong intuition, especially when contemplating someone we love, that love is real and transcends its physical manifestations.[15][16] Although such intuitions are not always correct, they are strong enough prima facie evidence that very compelling arguments to the contrary would be needed to cancel them out.[17] Although one can make plausible evolutionary explanations for loving potential sexual partners, ancestors and children, the experience of love is wider than these categories and is more experienced as more intense and fundamental than sexual desire or a propagation of ones genes. It is possible to conceive of love as the most fundamental principle, or one of the most fundamental principles, of the universe, and thinking about the universe in this way appears more coherent with human experience.[18] It is very difficult to speak of love in a coherent way without assuming its objective existence, albeit mediated by highly subjective and cultural factors. People act in practice as if love is real and transcends its physical manifestations, even if they claim to believe that it is a matter of neurons and chemistry.

A variant on the argument is a defence of the rationality of theism by comparing faith in God with love, and to suggest that if it isn't irrational to love someone then it shouldn't be seen as irrational to believe in God[28]. The philosopher Roger Scruton suggests: "Rational argument can get us just so far...It can help us to understand the real difference between a faith that commands us to forgive our enemies(theism), and one that commands us to slaughter them(atheism/anti-theism). But the leap of faith itself — this placing of your life at God's service — is a leap over reason's edge. This does not make it irrational, any more than falling in love is irrational.

The argument from contingency(Thomas aquinas) In the scholastic era, it was unknown whether the universe had a beginning or whether it had always existed. To account for both possibilities, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency". Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something that explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist — that is to say, since it is contingent — its existence must have a cause. And that cause cannot simply be another contingent thing, it must be something that exists by necessity, that is, it must be something that must exist in order for anything else to exist.[2] In other words, even if the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to Aristotle's Uncaused Cause,[3] though Aquinas used the words "... and this we understand to be God".[4]

Aquinas' argument from contingency is distinct from a first-cause argument (because it assumes the possibility of a universe that had no beginning in time), but is instead a form of argument from "universal causation". He observed that in nature there are things whose existence is contingent, that is, possible for it to either be or not to be. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which such things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If that is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Thus contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings, meaning there must exist a Necessary Being for which it is impossible not to exist, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a somewhat similar argument with his Principle of sufficient reason in 1714. He wrote: "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason ... is found in a substance which ... is a necessary Being bearing the reason for its existence within itself."[5]

Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler devised a refined argument from contingency in his book “How to Think About God”:

The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause. The cosmos as a whole exists. The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing). If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God. His premise for confirming all of these points was this:

The universe as we know it today is not the only universe that can ever exist in time. We can infer it from the fact that the arrangement and disarray, the order and disorder, of the present cosmos might have been otherwise. That it might have been different from what it is. That which cannot be otherwise also cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists can not be otherwise than it is. Therefore, a cosmos which can be otherwise is one that also cannot be; and conversely, a cosmos that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is. Applying this insight to the fact that the existing cosmos is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, we come to the conclusion that the cosmos, radically contingent in existence, would not exist at all were its existence not caused. A merely possible cosmos cannot be an uncaused cosmos. A cosmos that is radically contingent in existence, and needs a cause of that existence, needs a supernatural cause, one that exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible cosmos, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for merely a possible cosmos, namely, its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.

Adler concludes that there exists a necessary being to preserve the cosmos in existence. God must be there to sustain the universe even if the universe is eternal. Beginning by rejecting belief in a creating God, Adler finds evidence of a sustaining God. Thus, the existence of a sustaining God becomes grounds for asserting the creating activity also. The idea of a created universe with a beginning and (most likely) an end now becomes more plausible than the idea of an eternal universe. Adler believed that "to affirm that the world or cosmos had an absolute beginning, that it was exnihilated at an initial instant, would be tantamount to affirming the existence of God, the world's exnihilator."

Time is understood as "natural" in substance, while the uncaused cause is not natural and therefore not operable in time Aquinas, who re-formulated the argument as a proof for monotheism, understood the Divine as outside of time, viewing all of time, indeed being present in all of time, dualism(theism versus anti-theism) can be seen as supernatural and that whatever the "uncaused cause", it is the Divine(GOD).

These ideas(like many others) have been criticised by atheists simply because the perception atheists drew was a result of a denial of the perceived creator(based on a supposed reason)... considering the complexities of the argument and counter arguments,aswel as all the other intricacies of the universe, if there is a God, it is giving us an opportunity to suceed through using our mind, the more intense and complicated things, i would suggest, increases the chances that God created the universe

the trouble with atheism, suggestions such as... 'Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?"...thus they claim to know the intricacies of every individuals mind and completely dismiss what they believe in, just like other fundamentalists, even fear is pereption, we all know people have killed using various excuses through human history,eg, hitler distorted the idea of survival of the fittest in his own evil mind to condone the savage murder of millions of jews

so what is the difference between you saying this and me saying... logic is a byproduct of the mind...a perception that puts restrictions on your capacity to think, as if god is real,as a creator, the very act of creation is not definable through science

(IF)god is the laws of the natural of the universe, then you cant ask how it would do something...only why, most people use less than 10 percent of their brain,how would we even be ble to discover what gods like if it is rejected, assuming that there is no god because people cant answer important questions, is as at fault as the contrast

vague statements: i bet you look both ways when you cross the road...of course you wud look both ways on a road because if god created man with personal choice,THEY created cars,which are dangerous to humans, humans choose to drive them and risk killng people...this is physics and completely irrelevant to gods existence, other examples are, people having diseases like down syndrome or cancer resulting from exposure to nuclear waste, this sort of thing is peoples fault NOT gods...(such irrelevant arguments deter from the important issue,and the time that could be spent on scientific research) a balance between god and humans/physics can be struck with theism(or agnosticism) and it expains the necessities whereas in atheism this balance cannot be struck)

God is the creator of the human mind, whereas logic and reason are creations of the human mind(that really do not exist,like god does not 'exist' by virtue that to exist u must be physically definable, unless, like spinoza you believe god and the universe are the same, then god does exist, in that sense)

"you must respect other peoples opinion, but what if there is an opinion that you should not respect their opinion?"

dont pray asking god for stuff, god give us potential to do everything ourselves, why shud god have to intervene and fix everything, the only reason we should be praying is to say thanx!! life is a test which would be too easy if god intervened...

agnosticism is the only secular ideology, as theists and atheists base there ideas entirely on the premise that there is, or is not a god.words used to describe them are the same, devout, fundamental,etc...atheism is a religion as although not a belief system,in the sense, a belief in god but like buddhism, is a way of life, to be an atheist u believe a number of things, religion is wrong,there can be no 'supernatural' and many uneducated atheists attack people for what they believe in, with no proof of the contrast being ultimately true, the same with different religious groups,its the uneducated ones that spread contempt, theisms validity includes the concept of morality,etc and many theists are partly agnostic,they dont claim to know all, the same is not true for atheists however, that is its hypocracy.

User:Aurora-irelandis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search