The Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God

[Getchasome]

The Freewill Argument
for the Nonexistence of God

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.

Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does.

But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does.

Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.

If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent.

What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options?

Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid?

Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires.

No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists.

[sangh0]

1. An error so glaring in the 1st sentence, I could go no further

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything

Such a weak start. If one is going to comment about religious beliefs, it would help to understand those beliefs.

The Christian God is, by NO means, a "personal" being. According to Christian philosophy, God is non-corporeal. Do you know what that means?

If so, please explain how God can be a "personal" being while also being non-corporeal

[Getchasome]

6. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following

attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a "personal" God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

[Trajan]

8. The 'definition' of the god ....

provides the backround for considering and philosophizing about that god ... real or not ...

[sangh0]

10. Wrong

According to Christianity, God has no corporeal body.

One can have a "personal relationship" with God, but God is not a person in any way, shape, or form.

[Getchasome]

16. How is a personal relationship

with a God that is not a person in any way, shape or form equal anything other than a relationship with a being that only exists in our heads? OH, and how does the whole "creating us in his image" thing work if he has no body, shape, or form?

[sangh0]

20. Irrelevant

I don't know why you jumped from "God is a personal being" to those questions. As far as I can tell, the answers to those questions shed no light on whether or not God is a personal being.

It seems you're obsessed with the futile notion of somehow refuting God's existence, a refutation that Nobel prize winners can't make, but you seem sure that you can. If I'm wrong, then please explain how the "creating us in his image" is in any way relevant to the question "Is God a personal being?"

If you want to have an honest debate about whether or not God is a personal being, I'm happy to participate. But if you're going to pretend to discuss that, in order to continue your futile desire to split progressives along religious lines, I want no part of it.

SO which do you want, reasonable discussion or promoting your bigoted argument about God's non-existence?

[Getchasome]

24. You made a counter argument that god doesn't have a body

and I came back with "then how did he manage to make us in his own image." It's obvious reasonable discussion doesn't work with you because number one, you can't follow along, and number two, you've already assumed victory with the whole "personal being" issue. Sorry, but that's what I was taught. The argument on free will still works, no matter what you think God is, personal being or not.

[sangh0]

26. God is NOT a "personal being"

and I came back with "then how did he manage to make us in his own image."

A question doesn't refute a question

Sorry, but that's what I was taught.

And the fact that you can't consider the possibility that either you were taught wrong or did not understand what was said shows that you are the one who has "assumed victory"

[Sterling]

48. "It's obvious reasonable discussion doesn't work"

It can't work when one side has suspended all logic in order to reach their opinion.

[chicagiana]

80. You would think that ...

You would think that such an all knowing god would be a better communicator. I mean, a prophet here vs a prophet there.

Geez, how about some supernatural phenomenon spelling things out CLEARLY. Write commandments with fire in the rock for ALL of us to see!!!!

Give us prophets that can FLY and lift cars.

GEEZ, do SOMETHING thats a little more impressive than a 2-3 thousands year old book.


To me it's clear. If there is a god, it must have meant our existence to be a mystery to us. Because it can't seem to spell things out clearly for mankind in unambiguous fashion.

God might be all knowing. But I think she would be fired from ANY advertising firm for incompetence.

[Trajan]

7. I disagree with this notion ...

Non-corporeal - without a physical body ? ...

You are saying that god 'cannot be a personal god while also being non-corporeal' ...

WHY can a group of human beings relate to a non-corporeal entity, but not one of them individually ? ...

ONLY a group can understand/relate-to/communicate-with/worship-and-adore a non-corporeal deity while ONE of the group cannot ? ..

This makes no sense ...

[Getchasome]

11. As a former Christian,

this is what I told. That God is a personal being. Even if he doesn't have a physical body, it doesn't do anything to invalidate my original argument.

[sangh0]

15. It's that you can have a "personal relationship" with God

not that God is a personal being.

According to Christianity, God is a universal being, not a personal one.

[sangh0]

13. You conflate the relationship with the entity

According Christianity, one can have a "personal relationship" with God, but God is not a "personal God". The relationship is "personal", but God is not.

WHY can a group of human beings relate to a non-corporeal entity, but not one of them individually ? ...

A person, or persons, can relate personally to God. Then they have a "personal relationship" with God. But God is not a person.

ONLY a group can understand/relate-to/communicate-with/worship-and-adore a non-corporeal deity while ONE of the group cannot ? ..

This makes no sense ...

Which is why I didn't say that. An individual and/or a group of individuals can understand/relate-to/communicate-with/worship-and-adore a non-corporeal deity but that doesn't make God a "person"

[Trajan]

18. This becomes a verbal dispute, then ....

based on the usage of the phrase 'Personal Being' instead of 'non-corporeal being' ... It's a semantical issue ....

Do you really believe the poster's intent was to try and place flesh onto the god ? ... dress him up in meat and other things tangible ? ..

I didnt get that impression from his post ...

[sangh0]

23. No, the "personal" is about the relationship

and the argument that's posted in the OP misinterprets the "personal" as being about God's nature when it really is meant to describe the type of relationship one can have with God.

Do you really believe the poster's intent was to try and place flesh onto the god ? ... dress him up in meat and other things tangible ? ..

No, I think the posters intent was to make God out as a "personal being", mainly because that was stated EXPLICITELY (so I don't know why you don't understand this)

I believe that is a mistake, which is why I EXPLICITELY argued that God was not "a personal being" (so again, I don't know why you don't understand this)

[Trajan]

28. So ..

You wouldnt object to this overall statement if all instances of the word 'personal' were removed from the commentary ? ...

Frankly: .. I DONT see where the poster tries to depict the deity as a corporeal being in ANY way ....

Please feel free to cite those passages ....

[sangh0]

31. No

God is not "personal". One relationship with God is "personal"

[Trajan]

33. Laughs ....

No cite ....

Not a one ....

Now I understand: this is YOUR personal construct ....

It doesnt really exist either ....

[sangh0]

62. Cite = Martin Luther King Jr and Jesus (good enough?)

who often spoke of their personal relationship with God, and spoke of God as Love.


Is Love a "personal being"?

[immoderate]

71. Can those without god have love?

Are god and love exactly the same thing?

--IMM

[sangh0]

77. I don't know

There is a line in the Bible that goes something like "Whosoever knoweth not Love, knoweth not God, for God is Love", which says that without Love, one can not know God, but it's silent on the reverse

Are god and love exactly the same thing?

MLK Jr wrote a speech called the Seven Kinds of Love (or something like that) in which he describes, and distinguished between, various forms of love, such as the love one friend has for another, the love two lovers have, lust, etc... According to this line of thought, it's a particular form of love, known as agape that is the equivalent of God.

[H2O Man]

127. You miss the point

although likely on purpose. We can use a simple example. Gandhi was fond of saying "Truth is God," although he pointed out that it was an error to think that "God is Truth." For sake of this discussion, let's substitute the word "love" for "truth." The same holds true as in the Gandhian example: "Love is God" does not mean that "God is Love" is equally true.

A simpler answer is that even those who do not believe in gravity will still enjoy all the benefits of gravitational force.

[Trajan]

76. You know full well THIS poster made no such claim ...

I expected a cite from THIS poster's commentary showing how HE was making such an assertion ...

THAT you failed to provide ... simply saying 'personal being' doesnt necessarily imply a 'corporate being' ...

THAT: YOU constructed in your own mind, not he ....

[sangh0]

85. You're very confused

the important issue here isn't whether or not God is a "corporeal being"; It's whether or not God is a "personal being"

simply saying 'personal being' doesnt necessarily imply a 'corporate being' ...

Fine. But God is still NOT a "personal being" which is the claim the OP bases it's argument on. Too bad it's wrong.

[Trajan]

143. Fine ......

Fine, you say ....

From your first post on this thread ....

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

The Christian God is, by NO means, a "personal" being. According to Christian philosophy, God is non-corporeal. Do you know what that means?

If so, please explain how God can be a "personal" being while also being non-corporeal

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

Twas YOU who brought up non-corporeality .... it was a red herring from the start ....

You went on to insult anyone who questioned your red herring, crying "NOT a being, but a relationship ... NOT a being, but a relationship" ....

Frankly: is there much difference between having a relationship with a 'personal being' of god, and, being in a 'personal relationship' with god ??? ...

A 'personal being' really doesnt make sense on many levels, yet this is not what the original poster meant ... not that one had a 'personal being' of god about them, but that each man can communicate with their god in a personal way ... mano y mano ....

One can show MANY cites from the canon that refer to YHWH, The LORD, Elohim, et al, ... as VERY corporeal .... as being a 'personal being' in MANY instances and ways ...

I would hope the words of the bible are above your reverent penchant for insult ...

Here: The LORD appears with three angels (called 'three men', because they appear to be men, with head, arms legs, eyes, nose .. etc ) .... Abraham feeds these angels AND 'His Lord' real earthly foods ... This is an act of corporeal carnality ...

From the Book of Genesis:

18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
18:6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
18:9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

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

The 'corporeality' of the deity is clear in that passage ....

Next: God speaks to Moses 'Face to Face' .... A clear distinction from a 'non-corporeal' entity, is the ability to speak to that entity 'face to face' ... "as a man speaketh unto a friend" ...

Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Exodus 33:23
And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

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

Face to face conversations .... God speaking of his face .... God speaking of his 'back parts' .... When God descends into The Tabernacle and converses with Moses; is god not that moment a 'personal being' ? ...

I could bring up the numerous other cites of God/LORD/YHWH/Elohim possessing human and/or corporeal attributes and characteristics ....

What strikes me so clearly in all of this: Is your willingness to cast insults upon those who disagree with your notion that any mention of the term 'personal being' invalidiates all other aspects of the original posters argument .... It was merely a verbal dispute, and didnt detract from the primary thesis of his argument.

It is obvious that the reference to a 'personal being' was but a secondary or tertiary element in the thesis presented by the original poster ... yet: you dressed it up in the 'red herring' of a 'non-corporeality', and went around smacking each of us with it, as if it meant something significant ... It didnt ....

It's as if the disagreement were itself taken as a personal insult by you, forcing you to lash out in anger .... you use terms that degrade and debase, and insinuate the ignorance of your detractors ....

I find small distinction between the term god as a 'personal being', and 'having a personal relationship with god' .... You made the issue larger than life, in an attempt to stray from the primary issues presented in the piece .... a typical red herring ...

I dont mind being insulted ... I can take it ..... But you will know of it .....

Fine ....

[Sterling]

49. But if we go off on a tangent then we may wear people out before

the real issue is discussed. See who that works?

[Forkboy]

120. SOP for a certain poster here

[Guaranteed]

74. Exactly- I believe in God, but the Bible is bullshit.

FUCK the "Christian God."

Okay, now prove MY God doesn't exist.

This part:

"A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist."

is also mistaken.

[Lost4words]

79. I thought George Bush was GOD,....No?

Anyone who thinks GOD is going to save our little butts needs a tall strong drink. followed by another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another and another. dont stop now, keep going.

I am putting my hope to alien invaders.

[H2O Man]

125. I agree .....

I think that it is possible to have interesting discussions about this topic. However, the original post is so weak and flawed that it is better left to those of lesser understanding.

[sui generis]

2. shouldn't this topic go in the religion forum?

proselyzing our lack of faith without provocation is just as bad as the other side doing what they do.

[bloom]

44. Seems like a standard philosophical type argument

People should be allowed to discuss philosphy. Others don't have to read it.

[Old and In the Way]

3. We create God in our own image.

Easy proof that God doesn't exist. He'd never let Pat Robertson and Jerrty Falwell, et al, speak for him. Or maybe God just has a really warped sense of humor....

[Darranar]

4. Prescience doesn't invalidate free will. One can still make choices...

even if they can be predicted. But it certainly invalidates omnipotence, so the argument works anyway.

[K-W]

96. It can invalidate either omnipotence or free will.

Either God created the universe with full knowledge of what would happen, in which case free will is an illusion. Or he created the universe without the ability to see the end result which raises very important questions about the nature of God.

You cant have both.

The actual answer is that free will just isnt consistant with any philosophy of life. It is just a little fudging to keep the christian philosophy consistant. Without it there is no explenation for sin.

[Walt Starr]

5. The babel fish proves god does not exist

and he disappeared in a puff of logic.

:evilgrin:

I loe the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and simply must re-read those five books again.

[superconnected]

9. instead of focusing your energies on the God delimma

Or trying to disprove him, or even just trying to kick all Christians out of the Democratic party by being biggoted to them and going out of your way to prove they're wrong and/or don't have a RIGHT to believe what they want, Why not rise above it and work toward a unity in the democratic party so we can win an election overwhelming next time.

How about the Athiest gotta insult christians and go out of their way to try and prove them wrong threads stop?

[Trajan]

19. Feeling persecuted ? ...

Grab a sword and torch, and relive the good old days ....

[sangh0]

25. Feeling persecuted yourself, I see

projection isn't as much fun as it used to be, eh?

[Trajan]

29. Hey ...

Us heretical, blasphemous apostates can use swords too .. right ? ..

It would be just as immoral ... but after all: we ARE animals ...

[sangh0]

32. Speak for yourself

.

[Trajan]

34. Woof ! ...

[Walt Starr]

45. Dude, wht the fuck are you talking about?

Apparently you simply did not get the joke being referenced by my post!

[Sterling]

50. "christians and go out of their way to try and prove them wrong"

I have never had to go very far out of my way to do that.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. the babel-fish did that?

man, i gotta go re-read myself...

theProdigal

I think this is the exchange...ahhhh...the fun of it all...

<snip>
"However if you use the Big Bang and Cosmological Argument to prove God's existence you are ultimately proving His non-existance. For example Douglas Adams says when referring to a 'Babel fish' which is a fictional character which apparently proves God's existance, thus non-existence."

God: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Man: "But, the Babel fish (in our case the Big Bang) is a dead giveaway isn't it? It couldn't have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't."
God: "Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that.

God promptly vanishes in a puff of logic

<snip>

[rock]

39. Because, in fact, the Babel Fish is so miraculous that it

is a dead give away that God exists. And since God demands belief without proof, he doesn't.

[shrike]

94. Huh?

Guess I haven't missed anything by not reading "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

[chicagiana]

81. Embrace Jesus ...

Irregardless of the "god man" overtones. Jesus is a great philosipher. And the words of Jesus can be used to hammer so-called "Christians".

Whether I can judge you by my standards is debateable. I CAN judge you by YOUR standards.

[distantearlywarning]

12. I personally find arguments attempting to prove

the non-existence of God just as tedious as those which attempt to prove that He/She exists. I have to listen to the fundies argue about it all day long on MSM, and now I have to hear about it on DU too. :puke:

It's a matter of faith. No scientist is going to find God (or the lack of) in a petri dish. All the logic in the world is not going to conjure up the burning bush (or evidence that it never existed) for all of us to see. Why can't we all just believe what we want to and leave one another alone, for Christ's sake??? Or for the sake of the Great Empty Void. Or whatever.

[Getchasome]

17. Because the far right, religious nuts have taken over this country

[sangh0]

30. So you engage in futile and divisive arguments on DU?

Way to speak truth to power, dude!!!

Fighting back on DU is a really effective way to show those far right religuous nuts what you're made of. At least, those far right religuous nuts who hang out on DU. All three of them

You really showed them!!!

[Columbia]

43. LOL

:yourock:

[WLKjr]

75. Is this what just happend???

:nuke:

damn sanghO, you can really tear apart things can't you. lol. I would hate to try to debate you :D

[sangh0]

86. Anyone with a decent grasp of logic and reason

realizes that it's impossible to either refute or prove God's existence. Therefore, anyone who tries to accomplish such a futile goal obviously has a poor understanding of logic and reason.

And quite often, those with such a poor understanding of logic and reason like to deride others for their poor understanding of logic and reason.

[Getchasome]

90. Take it easy sangh0

you hard on.

[sangh0]

91. Wow! What a persuasive argument

I wonder if you'll ever explain the logic and rationality that led you to try to refute the irrefutable, instead of making personal attacks.

[Getchasome]

92. I wonder if you ever stopped to realize that you

sound like a condesending prick when you try and debate the subject matter. You're almost on the level of a republican.

[sangh0]

93. As if your name-calling

is something the repukes never do.

And again, you demonstrated your preference for personal attacks over discussing the issues. I notice that once again, you fail to address the impossibility of refuting the irrefutable, but that's understandable. There's no way you can defend such a futile exercise.

[Getchasome]

116. Funny, there are post coming up left and right

on religion and the existance of God and how nutty the right wing religious nuts are for believing what they believe, and countless individuals who belong to DU debate these issues day in and day out, yet YOU have the final say that it's impossible to refute the irrefutable and it's all just a futile exercise. Well, make sure you form an original post on this idea because I'm sure there will be many on this board that will be happy to debate if it's a futile exercise. For someone who finds such topics a "futile exercise," it's funny that you have so many replys on this orginal post. So I guess you enjoy arguing just to argue. You're probably one of those people that talk just to hear themselves talk as well.

[H2O Man]

129. perhaps

we could discuss the issue at hand without insults?

[H2O Man]

128. Do you think that a person who

is right is obligated to treat the often repeated errors of others with equal respect? And I'm not only speaking of this topic. Just in general. For example, if a person continues to say that Iraqi leader Saddam Insane was behind 9-11, do you treat that opinion with great respect? Would there come a time in a discussion when those who believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 would view you as condescending and perhaps a prick?

[jody]

21. The topic is interesting but no one has ever produced irrefutable proof

for the existence or nonexistence of God.

You might want to consider Blaise Pascal’s thoughts in “PENSÉES” among other writings.

[mom-mad-about-bush]

70. "The Science of God" is an interesting book.....

it brings the two sides together....and is very interesting.

[H2O Man]

131. Really?

Who is it by, etc? I started a thread on "religion vs science" that discusses just that theme .... based in large part on the theories of Viktor Frankl, the survivor of Nazi death camps who became one of the preeminent psychotherapists of the 20th century.

[chicagiana]

82. And no one ever will ...

Only god herself can resolve the issue if she makes things clear. Like skywriting, or reshaping mountains to look like Jesus or ... some signs that couldn't POSSIBLY be explained as natural phenomenon.

[EnfantTerrible]

123. But God is everything and nothing...

God is everywhere and nowhere...

Take a look at the world in which you exist... what more proof do you need? God is natural phenomenon and supernatural phenomenon... The Alpha and the Omega... God is... and God is not... The light and the dark and all shades in between...

This is why God "demands" faith without proof (though I personally don't think that God demands anything)... the very fact that God can't be proven or disproven is God in action... God is the space between these arguments.

[Getchasome]

117. Isn't irrefutable proof for the nonexistence of an invisible entity

sort of like saying "Saddam need to show us the weapons he says he doesn't have." ?

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the ones making a claim for existance. Because they can't show proof, then my belief in nonexistance is good enough.

[starroute]

22. This is not about "insulting" Christians

It's a real simple issue, and if there's a flaw in the original post, it's that it makes things unnecessarily complicated.

Basically, an omniscient God means a deterministic universe -- one in which everything that is going to happen is already written from the start.

This isn't just a Christian problem -- it's built into all the major monotheistic religions. It essentially makes the life and actions of every single one of us meaningless.

I can't live in a universe like that. I need to believe in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along universe -- one in which nothing is determined, in which we have free choices, and in which the future is the product of our choices.

Otherwise, what's the point of living?

[Trajan]

37. Even as I do not believe in a prescient omniscient and omnipotent deity ..

I do believe SOME aspects of nature provide a limited determinism ... especially when we consider our OWN delicate cell based existence ...

We cannot leap into the air and land on the sun ... We cannot drink the ocean in one gulp ... we MUST breathe with our lungs, since we cannot breathe with our toes ...

We are limited by our own humanity .... physically ....

We may have boundless abstract thought, but we cannot STOP being human beings .... Nature has determined that of us ....

[ladjf]

41. Hmm. Some good logic has crept into this discussion.

[Sterling]

51. "I need to believe in a make-it-up-as-you-go-along universe"

That is not the universe that many xtians live in. Everything has been foretold. Why we are in the rapture days right now, didn't you know it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

52. wait...the rapture happened??? i missed it?

shit...wonder what i did wrong...i wish i could get an update on this...

theProdigal

[chicagiana]

83. Not necessarily ...

Because while god may know everything thats going to happen, it may not give a shit about WHAT happens.

Everybody assumes they're so fucking special to god. In the grand scheme, I imagine that humans are no more important to god then a bacteria is to us.

[Dark]

27. Choice Purpose vis a vis Matrix n/t

[quaker bill]

35. You assume that god exists in time and things occur sequentially

It is only one of your several logical flaws, but it is a large one.

Unified theory holds that space and time came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

If god created the universe from nothing, then clearly god existed outside the constraints of space and time. Outside of these constraints, now and eternity disolve into unity. There is no sequential order.

When you look at it from the perspective that all and any time are but the same moment and all and any space are the same place. Your argument folds up upon itself.

[starroute]

54. Sequential time is of the essence, isn't it?

If the entire universe and all its history from beginning to end came into being already complete and perfect, then everything really is hard-wired into place.

And in that case, what's the point?

The only way I can see for the universe to have a purpose is if it keeps discovering itself as it goes along.

The only way in which I could conceive of a god creating the universe from outside would be as a kind of computer simulation, in which the whole point is that you can't predict ahead of time what it's going to do and the only way to find out is by running it.

Of course, that sort of god would be neither omniscient nor omnipotent. But by giving up that sort of god, you put magic back into the world.

Think about this. Predictability is a characteristic of the flattest and deadest things we see around us: music where we can hum along even if we never heard it before, murder mysteries where we know whodunit twenty minutes in, social interactions where we know exactly how things are going to go as if they were scripted.

On the other hand, great art and meaningingful social interactions are characterized by their unpredictability. The more surprising they are, they more they seem to open up into some higher dimension of transcendent meaning.

So even if it requires making sequential time an intrinsic quality of higher reality, and not merely an artifact of creation, I've got to believe that we live in a universe where things actually **happen** and not merely one in which everything is preordained.

[quaker bill]

68. It may be more subtle

I was not arguing my point of view, only pointing to a gaping hole in the OP argument.

I do not prefer preordination arguments myself. I actually find God to be present and immediately available in this place at this time, but then again, living as an individual in sequential time, that is the only perspective I have.

To the extent I am religious, I find that religion in reality, rather than the denial of it. I have no problem with the notion that if the world was created, it was created exactly as I find it.

If God exists and God created nature then there is no reason to believe that any act of such a God would seem at all un-natural to me, or for that matter, anyone else.

Science, by proving that things are natural or obey certain laws, does nothing to address questions about the existence or non-existence of God.

I am a natural scientist who has a graduate education in evolutionary biology. I find nothing about that study to conflict with faith in any way.

[chicagiana]

84. The universe MUST have been created ...

...

because nothing pops into existence all by itself. Something must create it!!! ALL things must have a creator.

God itself always existed and always WILL exist. God has no creator. God is a supreme being. God is the creator of all things. Therefore if something DID create God, then god must have created IT first!!!!

....


So the logic goes.

[Lost Creek]

36. enjoy your circle jerk

take it to the religion group

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

78. Just because you're not the center of attention at our circle jerk

doesn't mean you have to take it out on us

:-)

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. What a pointless thread

This is Democratic Underground - a left wing political forum. Threads about the existence of God seem wildly out of place and unnecessarily divisive. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and atheists here on DU - all of whom share the same political ideology, hence their prescence at the same political forum. I fail to see how your post attempting to start a flame war against fellow DUers accomplishes anything of value. So you're an atheist. That's fine by me. I am a Catholic. I should hope that's fine by you - if it's not, maybe you need to read the chapter on "tolerance" that came with your liberal handbook.

If your complaint is with the fundies, this is the wrong place to take it up - not many fundies here, last time I checked, at Democratic Underground. If all you want to do is spread rancor and argue with Christians, maybe you ought to do so at a forum designed expressly for theological debate. Most of the Christians at DU have no desire to impose their beliefs on anyone else, so I fail to see why you feel the need to fight the phantom battle against the nonexistant DU religious tyranny. It's counterproductive, divisive, and flamemongering.

I've no interest in debating the existence of God with you. You believe what you will, and I'll believe what I will, and that's good enough for me. I hope that will be good enough for you as well.

[Astarho]

42. The old "Destiny vs. Free Will" argument

Most of your arguement is based on assumptions (granted that is usually all we have in regards to god, which is why there is no logical proof one way or the other.)

It is an assumption that free will and destiny are mutually exclusive. Most of the "nature of god" stuff is an assumption as well. I tend to take the agnostic position that the nature of god is unknowable.

From what I gather, you see god as some kind of gamemaster and we are merely the pieces. And since we the pieces have free will, you say that god cannot know the outcome of the game, which is another assumption.

[regnaD kciN]

46. This is merely a jejune parlor game...

...along the same lines as the hoary old "can God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?" line.

Using limited human language categories to describe that which is by its nature unlimited will generally result in nonsense -- but this is especially so when said language is deliberately chosen in order to set up a trap that doesn't exist outside said language (i.e. asserting that, for a being to have free will, said being must also have a "period of uncertainty").

It's not just atheists who do this, BTW. One of the most famous medieval proofs of God's existence was what has become known as the "ontological argument," first enunciated by Anselm of Canterbury (the same cleric who came up with the "substitutionary atonement" theory of redemption so beloved by Mel Gibson :eyes: ). According to the ontological argument, God is "that of which nothing greater can be conceived." Therefore, if one says "God does not exist," one is conceiving a God with the property of non-existence. However, since it is clear that the property of existence is greater than that of non-existence, a non-existent God is thus less than an existent God. And therefore, being less than an existent God, a non-existent God is not "that of which nothing greater can be conceived." Therefore the statement "God does not exist" is and will always be meaningless. Therefore God exists.

Got that?

:crazy:

Defining God in the way the original poster did is not all that different from what Anselm did, albeit in the other direction: set up a trick definition (in this case, "God = personal being = free will = uncertainty," with a raft of other categories thrown in later) for the sole purpose of setting up a "straw man" that exists only so that it can easily be demolished.

[rug]

53. God has no future

You have placed God in a linear time frame with a present and a future. Doesn't work. (BTW, I like this thread).

[Lerkfish]

47. wow, I"m glad this wasn't another bash-christians thread...

...er....oops.

never mind.

;)

[The Straight Story]

55. Total BS to me

Just because we define god in human terms does not mean he is bound by them.

Think computer games and AI. The creatures living in that universe are bound by rules god is not (ie, god=programmer). The game player can make their own decisions freely, but those can be anticipated before hand and a good programmer can work around such things.

Freewill too one could think of as a movie - we all acted out things up until the end, god saw such, but we still had freewill when doing them.

Or - god knows the creature and can predict how we will progress over time and what the outcome will be, so without specifics he can warn us about the future - which we can change but probably will not. In the sense of the god of the bible - mankind will get to a point it rejects him, embraces humanism, facism will ensue, nuclear weapons and more will enter in, and mankind will kill himself off. Unless he intervenes. Generic in details, but overall shows a knowledge of how we act and react over time.

Coming up (according to things I have read over the many years) Smart ID cards, elimination of cash, concentration of power to the few, use of power by the few to harm the many, and so on - an age old tale which repeats itself over time but grows worse as we gain more abilty scientifically over time (ie more wicked weapons, more environmental destruction, et al). In this sense, god did know and warned us. We chose to ignore him and plow on.

The book of Revelation may be right on in some ways when we see it in a different light. Mankind will screw himself with the help of others in the spirit world. Reject god, our role in the earth (stewards of it) our role towards each other (ie caring for each other and so on) and the path we are on is eerily familiar.

the end result - those in power screw us all. We can choose to heed this warning, or we can ridicule christians and those that hold such views. The people we can most make our friends in this battle we alienate it seems. Time to reach out to them, to me, and show them the broader picture which god has given them.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

56. Amen

Very well said. As for those who don't believe and feel like they can create rules that god has to work by, be thankful he/she belives in you. ;)

[The Straight Story]

59. To me it dealt with something deeper at one time.

I was agnostic/atheist/pagan/et al. Been the whole route. I finally realized, to me, I was biased against the faith I grew up with and never really tried to look at the deeper parts of it.

Faith in god or a religion is akin to me in faith in a philosophy or a political belief, and in some ways mirrors a scientific belief (ie, we change our views and ideals in science almost monthly sometimes it seems). I love science, but have seen just as much division in it as I have religion. Sad really....

[Columbia]

60. Amen

[journalist3072]

61. My Take...

In reference to your comments on "Smart ID cards, elimination of cash, concentration of power." These are all things which must come to past.

The Bible teaches us that during the Great Tribulation, the Anti-Christ will rise and would have us take the mark of the beast. The purpose of the Mark of The Beast is that no one will be able to buy or sell anything without it. But the Bible clearly tells us the consequences of accepting the Mark of the Beast.
"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18).

"A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: 'If ANYONE worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name. This calls for patient endurance on the part of THE SAINTS who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus' " (Rev. 14:9-12).

[distantearlywarning]

87. I have a question about this....

So people who take the mark of the Beast are going to hell. Nobody should take the mark of the Beast unless they want to go to hell. Got that.

But...the first paragraph says that the Beast will FORCE people to take his mark! What are you supposed to do if you don't want to and they hold you down and put it on you anyway? Do you still go to hell? That doesn't seem very fair to me!

[journalist3072]

119. Mark of the Beast

Some clarification: We WILL have a choice as to whether nor not we want to accept the Mark of the Beast. What the scripture is saying is that if you want to buy or sell something, you will have to do it with the Mark of the Beast.

The question each of us must ask ourselves is this: What is more important? That your name is written into the Book of Life,and you have a place in Heaven? Or, that you are cast down into the lake of fire?

This is where the patience of true Christians comes in. There will be a mighty wonderful reward for those who endure to the end, and keep faith with the Heavenly Father.

For example, the scripture teaches us that the 5th Seal that is opened by Jesus Christ represents the souls of martyred souls--people who died for their belief in Jesus Christ. And these martyred souls asked the Lord how long would he take to avenge their deaths. And he tells them to wait a little longer, for there will be other people who will be killed just as they were--for their belief in Him.

So what this tells us is that true Christians will resist the Mark of the Beast--and many of them will be killed for it. But their reward awaits them.

Here is the scripture:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Revelation 6:9-11

[journalist3072]

57. God Is Real

I just want to let you know that God is real! He loves you, me and everyone.

I want to give you some scriptural references:


Mathew chapter 16 verses 13 to 18:

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(EMPHASIS: "Son of the Living God")

Matthew Chapter 3, verses 16-17

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the SPIRIT OF GOD descending like a dove, and lighting upon him;


And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

[journalist3072]

58. One More Thing

If anyone doubts that God is real....they will find out.

Read the Book of Revelations. Before Jesus Christ physically returns to Earth and plants His feet on the Mount of Olives, there will be 7 vials poured out onto this Earth. The seven vials contain GOD'S WRATH (His displeasure) with the way this Earth has been run.

[Swamp Rat]

63. I prefer H.P. Lovecraft or Isaac Asimov.

They wrote much more entertaining books.

[journalist3072]

64. There is no greater book than the Bible.

[DrWeird]

66. Eh. The good stuff's plagiarized. The rest is boring.

All the cool Old Testament stuff is lifted directly from the Epic of Gilgamesh. New Testament? All Buddhist philosophy written down six hundred years before Jesus was born.

And don't even get me started on Numbers.

[Swamp Rat]

69. Numbers...

"ONE... ha ha ha!" - Count von Count from Sesame Street.

[sangh0]

88. It's not plagiarized

In order for it to be "plagiarism", someone has to take credit for something someone else wrote. As far as I know, no one has stepped forward and claimed that they wrote the Bible.

Nice try DrWeird, but I'm surprised that someone as logical as you would allow your religious prejudices to lead you to fail to understand what a simple word like "Plagiarism" means.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

98. Argue with the dictionary

The word plagiarize means what it means, not what you want it to mean.

My point was that there's nothing interesting in the Bible that hadn't come from somewhere else, so IMHO, it's hardly the "greatest book ever written."

And you think that justifies telling untruths? I guess that's another piece of the atheists "logic and reason" that they worship, instead of understanding.

[DrWeird]

99. I'm not arguing some semantics and dictionary definitions.

Why is it Creationists always have to take the literal interpretation of everything? Jesus fucking Christ.

"And you think that justifies telling untruths? I guess that's another piece of the atheists "logic and reason" that they worship, instead of understanding."

Hey, the Bible's full of shit. That's my opinion. True or false doesn't have anything to do with it. Funny you talk of understanding without being able to fit that through your head.

[sangh0]

100. and for good reason. The dictionary proves you wrong

Hey, the Bible's full of shit.

And anyone who makes up their own daffynitions for words like "plagiarize" are also full of shit.

True or false doesn't have anything to do with it.

I never assumed that the truth of something had anything to do with your beliefs

[DrWeird]

102. You're being facetitious.

I used plagiarized in the sense that the story had been lifted from other older works down to the details. You want to quibble over the point that no one claims credit for writing the Bible, fine. I'm not arguing that. My point stands that the Bible is unoriginal.

[sangh0]

103. There is no sense

in using the word plagiarize the way you did. Unless you're deep into a rabbit hole, words do NOT mean what you say they mean.

My point stands that the Bible is unoriginal.

And all the "quibbling over semantics" that you claimed you didn't want to do, and then continued to do, could have been avoided by saying that, instead of resorting to hyperbole. Instead of acknowledging your mistake (which you characterize as minor) and reqording it, you chose to argue about the semantics and took the wrong side to boot.

[DrWeird]

105. Sure there's a sense.

If I rewrote the Wizard of Oz and changed Dorothy's name to Razzatazz but kept the plot the same. Then I published millions of copies and stuck them in Hotel rooms, and people started saying hey, this book "Razzatazz and the Yellow Brick Road" is the greatest book every written. And people stopped reading Baum's The Wizard of Oz. That would still be, essentially, plagiarism. Even if I didn't put my name on the book.

Law school-esque technicalities aside. The spirit of the word "plagiarism" still applies.

But hey, you're the one who wanted to talk about semantics.

[sangh0]

108. Lots of words won't cover up your mistake

If what you described occurred, it would be copyright infringement, but not plagiarism.

The spirit of the word "plagiarism" still applies.

The "spirit"??? LOL!!! I thought you didn't believe in spirits

[DrWeird]

110. Again, you're being facetitious.

And intellectuall dishonest. And, frankly, a little rude. I though Christians were supposed to be a little better than that. Either way, you should at least be a little ashamed.

Here's another word you can add to your vocabulary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exaggeration

Because I didn't make no mistakes.

[sangh0]

111. You're being laughably demonstrative of your ignorance

1) First I was being "semantical". Now I'm "facetious". You seem to have a problem with the English language. It's impossible to be both.

2) You've been as rude an anyone else.

3) I'm not a Christian, and I've told you this several times before, but it must be hard for you to learn new things.


Because I didn't make no mistakes.

Yeah, right. Just like Jesus

[DrWeird]

112. What are you, a lawyer?

You're trying to argue semantics because you're getting all upset because the way I used "plagiarised" didn't fit your narrow and fairly arbitrary definition of the word within the context I used it. Even though everybody knew exactly what I meant. Apparently, according to you, I should have used the words "copyright infringment" even though that, obviously, would have been worse. Regardless, you're talking about the specifics of the words I used instead of bothering with what I, clearly, meant. And you're being facetious to because, you're saying "ha, ha. You used a word incorrectly (even though I didn't really). You don't know what you're talking about! (even though I do) You're an anti-christian bigot! (I am not)." And because of that we've now had to go way off topic because you're all upset over semantics.

You're one of those non-christian Creationists? Wow, you're awfully confused.

[sangh0]

114. Doctor, heal thyself

you're getting all upset because the way I used "plagiarised" didn't fit your narrow and fairly arbitrary definition of the word

I merely pointed out your mistake. You're the one who is getting all hot under the collar. So hot, you keep complaining about this semantic and facetious quibble, while continuing to participate in it.

[Swamp Rat]

67. OK, let's "agree to disagree."

Btw, "the Bible" is more than one book. And it has undergone thousands of changes and permutations, as it was translated and edited for other languages. ;)

[H2O Man]

132. that's an important point .....

In fact, there is no one "bible" even today. That being said, a person can still view it, in general, in numerous ways .... without even applying terms of "good" or "bad" to it. It has played a central role in western history & culture for a significant period of time. Which brings us back to your point: one needs to know the history of the book(s), especially why some things are included, others excluded, and some are simply edited to change the original intent.

Very important post, Swamp Rat!

[distantearlywarning]

89. See what you started????

Now you've riled up the fundies too!!! Now we not only have to listen to the original poster telling us how he "knows" that God doesn't exist, but now we have to listen to another telling us how he "knows" He does.

Neither of you "know" anything of the sort. You may "believe". But you don't KNOW.

This a matter of faith. There is no logic or science that will adequately support your viewpoint. And furthermore, many of the rest of us are tired of all the proselytizing all the time, on both sides.

Agree to disagree and let it go!

[Zensea]

65. I'd recommend reading Tolstoy on this subject.

The last 100 pages or so of War & Peace are a fairly detailed analysis of these questions regarding free will, etc.
I'm not going to attempt to summarize his argument, but if you're interested in the subject you should check it out.

[lgardengate]

72. Don't agree. You are going on your own logic.

I'm not going to argue.It would be pointless.There is no argument that will convince a non beliver, and no argument that can convince a believer that there faith is misplaced.For a believer "faith" is the "evidence" of things unseen.

[Little Wing]

73. Seriously flawed in its fundament.

• Not all Christians believe in the concept of free will. Fundamentalists and even many evangelists believe in a predestiny, a God with a plan which tends to negate the concept of free will.
  
• Even those who believe in free will as a gift from god, believe the free will is extended to humanity from a loving father, not that god is subject to free will his/her/itself.
  
• If God is omnipotent and omniscent, it is not impossible that the Supreme Being can mix and mingle elements of predestiny with elements of free will. Indeed, modern physics seems to imply that much of whether something is past or future, unalterable or yet alterable depends to a great degree on one's perspective and proximity to the event horizon.

[Senator Lamb]

95. Read

THe connotation of philosophy by Boethius in matters of how we can have free will but god still knows the outcome.

[Xipe Totec]

101. Read Kurt Godel

In 1931 the mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved that within a formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html

Translation: There are questions that can't be resolved within formal systems such as logic.

[sangh0]

104. And yet, the worshipers of Logic and Reason

will continue their futile attempts to refute the irrefutable while mocking the "irrationality" of others.

How ironic

[Xipe Totec]

107. Craftsman, know thy tools

Care for them and use them well. But know their limits lest you ruin them and injure yourself.

:evilgrin:

I started out as a hard core worshiper of science (and still am). But the deeper I dug into the subject, the more it started to morph into eastern religion.

One of my favorite quotes is from the movie Red Planet:

"I discovered that science doesn’t deal with the really interesting questions, so I turned to philosophy. I've been looking for God ever since" - Chantilas

[sangh0]

109. Similar to my story

Found religion at about age 40

[Xipe Totec]

118. Can't Remember how old I was

But the seeds of doubt started with Heisenberg. It was down hill from there, then Einstein-Bell sent me over the edge.

Somewhere in my 40's too. I think...

[Jim__]

113. Yes, but ....

Godel's theorem doesn't tell us which propositions are undecideable.

I agree that as of yet, no one has been able to prove or disprove the existence of god. But, I'm not sure that anyone has proven that the question is undecideable. If anyone has, I'd be interested in reading the proof.

Personally, I think discussions about the existence of god can be interesting; it does depend on the arguments that are raised and how people respond to them. Even if we can't make an ultimate determination, we can learn from the discussion.

[Xipe Totec]

115. Question of Undecidability may itself be undecidable

within a formal system. Godel's point was that all formal systems are limited.

My point is that one should first determine whether the problem of God's existence is amenable to a logical solution, then apply logic to determine the outcome. Not the other way around. The proof of the existence of God by logical means is a game that has been ongoing for centuries. Even Descartes and later Russel took serious stabs at it and got shot down. Godel came later and said the tools were broken anyway.

Discussion may be healthy and interesting, but not in the manner that I see on this thread; This is more of a food fight than food for thought.

[H2O Man]

137. That is such an important point ....

that I wish you would make it on the "science v religion" thread that is also found on GD. Does religion properly fall into the conscious part of the brain? Or does it reside in the same area as, say, the other level of "consciousness" that allows a mother to sleep through all types of loud noises, but wake instantly when there is a tiny change in her infant's breathing?

Can a person be told to be religious any more than they can be told to laugh? Do not such things reside in an area that must be approached in a different manner? Likewise, do formal religious instructions inhibit spirituality in much the same manner that formal art classes bind true artistic talents?

I believe that your post implies much the same as we are discussing on the other thread. You would be a valued addition.

[Xipe Totec]

142. Thank you for the invite

There are so many threads on the subject right now that I'm not sure which to join. Do you have a link or exact tittle?

I'll certainly read the posts, though I may not have much more to add.

[H2O Man]

144. "On Science and Religion"

It's been a pleasant discussion thus far, as people do not seem to view differences of opinion as cause for insult or conflict.

[bemildred]

121. Yes. And all logic is tautological.

You get out in theorems what you put in in assumptions.
And logic cannot tell you what assumptions to make, other than
that when you get contradictions, it's a bad thing, because then
you can prove anything, so you have no discrimination at all.

Or as is said in the computer biz: "garbage in, garbage out"

[Xipe Totec]

126. The Rig Veda

The Creation Hymn of the Rig Veda asserts that in the beginning there was no air, no heavens, no water, no death and no immortality. Night and day did not exist and there was only the breathing of the One. Then somehow creation occurred. No one knows how this happened, and the Rig Veda speculates that possibly even the One does not know.

-Commentary on the Rig Veda

[bemildred]

130. See, they knew about the "Big Bang".

"Then somehow creation occurred"
:-)

Alan Watts says in one of his lectures that we live in a world that
just naturally makes people in the same way that it grows trees and
fish and stars. You can explain and explain and explain, and you do
not change that fundamental observation.

Your commentary on knowing seems apropos. One does not need to
"know" in order to "be". Words are mere candy cotton froth on the
flow of being. And yet we get these silly arguments about the correct
verbal formula that all ought to subscribe too. And yet all verbal
formulae are just shadows thrown on a wall by the light of being,
abstractions from the concrete reality that surrounds us.

Plato said that we are the shadows and words, the ideal, are the
reality, but Plato was wrong.

People would do well to be quiet and pay more attention. Do not
confuse the tools with the task to be performed.

[Xipe Totec]

134. See post #133 which echoes your points

:hi:

[bemildred]

136. "Consciousness is a fly that sits on the ass of an Ox and takes credit

for plowing the fields.'
:hi:

[H2O Man]

138. Good.

Very good.

[bemildred]

140. Stolen from Mr. Totec. Credit where credit is due. nt

[Steely_Dan]

106. God is...

God is the monolith in "2001: A Space Odyssey."

-P

[VioletLake]

122. This is an interesting topic.

It usually (when I'm not in a flippant mood) leads me to the following questions:

Do thoughts exist?

What is consciousness?

[VioletLake]

124. Here's an interesting opinion piece that I found

that attempts to shed some light on the question of consciousness.

Even so, the anterior cingulate is not the "seat of consciousness." There is no single area responsible for consciousness; consciousness is not an entity but an active process that requires the participation of many components. Among these are awakeness and alertness, access to our memories of preceding events, the ability to form some kind of mental picture of the likely consequences of our actions and being able to "get in touch" with ourselves via internal monitoring--that sense of self and identity that separates each of us from everyone else in the world. When Descartes declared, "I think, therefore I am," he gave short shrift to some very vital processes. Without neurotransmitters in his brain stem, without areas in the brain called the hippocampus and the frontal and prefrontal areas, as well as the anterior cingulate, he wouldn't have been able to formulate the concept of "I."

What is Consciousness?
By Richard Layton

[Xipe Totec]

133. Being Late For Consciousness

In on experiment in 1970 Neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet of The University of California at San Francisco documented a gap between the time an individual was conscious of the decision to flex his finger (and recorded the exact moment of that consciousness) and the time his brain waves indicated that a flex was imminent. The brain activity occurred a third of a second before the person consciously decided to move his finger.

Remembering When by Antonio R. Damasio
Scientific American September 2002

http://www.geocities.com/pavesina/papers/damasio_remembwhen.pdf

Consciousness is a fly that sits on the ass of an Ox and takes credit for plowing the fields.

[H2O Man]

135. I wish that you

would add that to the thread "religion v science" on GD. It is a study of noology and logotherapy. Although the thread is still small, and progressing slowly, you information would go very well there. I would appreciate another thoughtful and insightful person taking part in that discussion.

[VioletLake]

139. I will

thanks :)

[H2O Man]

141. Thank you .....

This is obviously going to be an important issue in the future of not only the democratic party, but in the fabric of our community and family life in the USA. Spirituality, properly understood, has the ability to create unity and understanding. It could even happen on DU!