moiii

Livius Drusus

Thanks for your response. I realize I am at times a babbling idiot. Thank you for stomaching my insidious line of questions. Maybe you can help educate me. Oh and by the way, I'm not trying to convert anybody. Just searching like many of you. Thanks! Have a great day. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Draygomb

Negatives can be proven that's how we know there aren't any square circles, that's how we know god can't be both conscious and the first cause. By definition nothing can both have and not have the same attribute.

Draygomb

Moiii

You say I have Faith, Then tell me what I have Faith in.

Orpheous99

The big differance between religious faith and normal faith is that normal faith is based on previous real world experiences whereas religious faith is based on nothing. The evidence you assert for the existence of your god can very easily be used as evidence for ANY god, thus it is not credible nor verifible proof of anything.

Using gravity as an example is not good since even if you don't believe in it you're not going to continue going up if you jumped.

livius drusus

I wouldn't call you either. Your posts are too short to be called babbling, and you are clearly not an idiot. Your questions aren't at all insidious, just a tad worn out if you've hung around these boards for a while. And as for my educating you, I'm not that kind of girl. I'll just stick to a conversation between peers, if that's okay with you. Excellent news! I didn't think you were on a stealthy campaign of conversion, but you never know until you ask. I hope you find discussion here as stimulating as I have found it.

Echo

Moiii,

If I missed your point, perhaps you didn't express your thoughts clearly.

IMO, "the point" of your post is that faith is belief in invisible things, like gods and gravity and atoms and astral bodies.

All I want to know is how we determine which invisible things really exist and which invisible things are invisible precisely because they aren't really there.

If I've misunderstood your point, by all means clarify.

joedad

I always liked Dan Barker's illustration in "Maybe Yes, Maybe No" concerning gravity.

If one supposes that a material reality is evidence of a god, is this not identical to believing that a falling object is evidence for the existence of invisible, undetectable little birds, that push things downward?

Should we then have faith in these little invisible birds, or is there possibly another, better explanation?

If we are unwilling to believe in invisible undetectable little "gravity birds," then we needn't believe in invisible undetectable religious and creator gods.

joe

daemon

For a while when I was a Christian I thought moiii's argument had merit, but since then I've looked at it and noticed the flaw.

The difference is one of faith versus belief. I have a wide variety of beliefs--that reason is a good way to analyze the world, that causality is a viable idea, that my car is outside in the parking garage. The first two are beliefs about how the universe, or at least my little pocket of it, works, and are backed up by experience. The last, however, is a belief about the state of things existant that I have no current data on, which is somewhat similar to a belief in a diety. However, unlike said belief in a diety, I have "experienced" my car, know how to recieve additional information about my car, and can clearly convey to anyone how to do so as well. Belief in God, on the other hand, is characterized usually only by the first of these, if any. I can state from personal experience that, as a Christian, I had none of these, and it is quite obvious that the third criteria definitely does not hold as no Christian has even been able to convey how to experience God. This indicates there is a distinct difference between belief in my car and belief in God, which I call faith. So, while atheists may have beliefs, they do not, by my definition, have faith.

However, moiii has asserted that God can be detected. Tell me, how can this be done?

Kvalhion

Let's say I have a sophisticated computer that runs a very complex program with a defined set of rules. This program has been running for millions of years while operating within the parameters that define the program.

All the objects within the program are subjected to the same rules. This does not mean all objects are the same; it only means that they all are subjected to the same laws as every other object. From our perspective, gravity would be a good law to use as an example. A pencil is subjected to gravity just as an elephant is, yet the two objects are hardly the same.

One day, after millions of years, a particular class of object decides that it knows how this program works. In fact, this class of object decides that it knows how the program was written in the first place. This class of object decides that since it has this knowledge, the laws that apply to all objects must not apply to this particular object, for it is obvious that this particular project must be special.

Similar to a modern virus, this particular class of object starts to behave in a manner that no object has ever behaved in before. Instead of a limited competition between objects that has always existed, this class of object wages war upon the other objects, obliterating them, thus gaining more resources for themselves. They look up at the program and brace for punishment.. yet nothing happens. The program works as it has always worked. Naturally, the lack of response is seen by this class of object as affirmation from the program. This is what the program wants. So, they continue to test their environment in a variety of ways. Some work (what the program wants) and some do not (what the program doesn't want). Thus, this class of object attributes a consciousness to the program.

There are many areas of consciousness that this class of object discovers. There is a God of the sky, a God of water, a God of love, a God of weather, etc. Each God is appeased in dynamic ways. Successful results are seen as good (what the program wants) and unsuccessful results are seen as bad (what the program doesn't want). Eventually this class of object dominates every other similar class of object and assimlates them into their own culture. What was once tens of thousands of unique objects in this class is now 99.8% the same object.

Eventually this particular class of object discovers that not only is their behavior detrimental to all other classes of objects, but it is also detrimental to a good part of the objects within its own class. These objects begin to wonder why this is. Thus, the Gods of all objects is assimilated into One God Above All. This God is even better than than the program itself; this God created the program specifically for this class of object! This God proclaims that while this program may be inferior, a newer, better, utopian program awaits! Knowing this, this particular class of object forgets that there was ever a time where they didn't behave in the manner they currently behave in. Although the program has not changed it's parameters one iota, this class of object attributes meaning to the events that have happened for millions of years. They attribute the meaning to be all about them.

What does this have to do with faith?

This class of object in the story believes that the computer has a consciousness. That the program was created just for them, and that the program wants this one class of object to dominate the program. Of course, in reality the program acts in no special way towards any object; it simply runs the way it was designed from the beginning.

Think of a random number generator that generates numbers between 1 and 100. This class of object has faith that the number 7, which is invariably lucky for them, will come up. They behave in a certain manner, they perform daily rituals, they pray to the program, all in hopes that 7 will come up for them. Every once in a while, inevitably 7 does come up. The lucky recipient in the class of object cheers and praises God, and turns to others and says, "See! God exists!". Yet more often than not, those within the class of objects that subscribe to the exact same beliefs and perform the exact same rituals as the one that scored a 7 will have the very unlucky 13 come up. They also see this as existence of God, where God is punishing them for some wrong. More often than not, numbers between 1 and 100 come up that are not 7 or 13. No matter what number comes up, this class of object has faith that the consciousness of the program (God) has a purpose for every number, and that if they try harder, become more religious, have more faith, and pray more, then 7 will come up.

Interestingly enough, those within this class of object that do not have faith, that do not share beliefs, that do not follow rituals, also receive 7s and 13s just as often as those who do follow these things. There has never been a material difference between the two. Why? Because the program has been generating random numbers for millions of years, and no matter what we give meaning to the results of this program, this will not change.

How does this story end? This class of object is slowly learning that the laws they thought did not apply to them have always applied to them, and they are now experiencing the consequences of living outside of these laws. The program is working as it has always worked; there is no difference there. Yet the program was created in such a manner that any class of object that removes itself from the laws inevitably dies or crashes the program.

So the specific answer to your assertion is that people by attributing their faith to God are simply performing rituals hoping to gain success rather than failure in Nature by giving Nature a consciousness it simply doesn't have.

Therefore, when invariably someone by chance does hit the jackpot and proclaims "Thank you God!", don't be surprised when those that know better just aren't impressed.

(spelling)

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kvalhion ]</p>

sbaii

==================================================

My dictionary says agape is "God's love for HIS creatures." I assume you mean a platonic nonerotic love, perhaps a parental love? This is a love that expects nothing in return. I believe people love their children because they need to.All parents who are in their right minds will say they love their children although their actions may not show it in which case there is reason to not believe them. Does the behavior of an animal towards its children show agape?