Something you'll need to procure in preparation for the impending zombie apocalypse?
Technically, I think it would depend on the actual time and place of their birth.. Age is most accurately calculated based on the current time of wherever one was born.
Depends on how you look at it, but the case could be made, I suppose.
God
gäd/
noun
noun: God; noun: god; plural noun: gods; plural noun: the gods
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Obviously definition #2 is the most relevant here. So...
P1: Demons and guardian angels are superhuman beings or spirits possessing power over both nature and human fortunes, making them definable as "gods."
P2: Many Christians believe in the existence of guardian angels and demons.
C: Many Christians are polytheistic by definition.
Worship? No.
I would worship no deity whose moral decisions, actions, and overall outlook were not both intelligible and congruent with my own.
Basically, I would have to understand and agree with everything God does to even entertain the idea of worship. And let's just say I have more than a few questions concerning some of Gods exploits.
Impossible standards? Maybe. But then I'd imagine an omnipotent, omni-benevolent being should have no problems fulfilling them.
Since atheism is a position on a particular religious claim, I'd have to say that yes, atheism is inherently religious in nature.
That is not to say, however, that atheism is, in and of itself, a religion. More like an ingredient or a foundation for a religion, requiring at least a few more beliefs, rules, ceremonies, etc. to be fully realized as a religion.
Of course, this could depend on how you go about defining "religion." Just doing a quick search, I see that one definition on Merriam-Webster is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group."
Atheism could be a religion under that definition, but then again, so could just about anything. Is fishing a religion? Video games? Debating online?
If you take the position that the Abrahamic (or any other) god is a fictional character, then I don't see the problem. Lots of fictional characters are disliked.
"It has already been established that Atheists have a shorter life span than their religious brethren."
No, it has not been established that atheists have a shorter life span than their religious brethren, and it takes only a few minutes on Google to see this. Any study which leads to such a conclusion is narrowly short-sighted and fails to address the most important variable; society itself.
I'll demonstrate:
First off, lets look at the life expectancies of some of the most religious countries, and compare with some of the most non-religious.
demographics: WIN-Gallup International Poll
Religious:
United States: 78.6
Ghana: 64.2
Nigeria: 51.9
Armenia:73.9
Non-religious:
Japan: 82.6
Czech Republic: 77.9
Netherlands: 81.2
France: 81.7
With very few exceptions, the non-religious countries tend to beat out the more religious countries overall in life expectancy.
From this data, one might come to the opposite conclusion. It would seem atheists have the longer life span while theists live poor, uncivilized and rather short lives. Maybe theists shouldn't be allowed to spread their beliefs?
But, of course, this sort of comparison isn't exactly apples to apples here. Obviously members of a poor, uneducated society will have harsher, more difficult, stressful lives than those in richer, more developed ones. And, as most any health study will show, high levels of stress lead to higher rates of ailments such as heart disease and depression, which, in turn, lead to a shorter life span. To put it in simple terms, more stress generally equals shorter life.
This is important and becomes evident when you do an apples to apples comparison, looking at religious and non-religious people of the same country. Almost all of the data comes from U.S. studies but, in general, religious people have a health advantage when they are part of a majority (like in the U.S.) and lose that advantage if they are in a society where they are in the minority.
It is obviously more stressful to live life as an ostricized and hated minority than it is to live as a member of the socially accepted majority. As many studies have shown, atheists are the most distrusted minority in the United States; in some cases, distrusted even more than rapists. Atheists are also almost completely excluded from participation in politics in the U.S. with some states even having laws specifically prohibiting them from running for public office. Atheists receive little to nothing in the way of public support, and thus, it is not surprising at all to see that they have higher rates of stress and depression as compared to the religious majority. Studies concerning homosexuals will show similar results; I'd say for similar reasons.
The problem is that some societies are too concerned with social cliques and stigmas and not as supportive and accepting of diversity as they may think they are. Look again at places such as Denmark or The Netherlands. These cultures are not entirely atheist by any means, but they place almost no importance on religion at all in society. Religion is a private matter and is rarely mentioned in everyday talk. They're very secular societies and people simply don't care what religion you are; and I think it's no coincidence these countries tend to rank very high in terms of overall happiness and life expectancy. NY Times article on religious culture in Denmark/Sweden.
The issue is not just whether or not you are atheist or theist, the issue is how does society treat you for being atheist or theist, and how does that effect your health.
Sure, it makes sense. You know they are going to be offended and you wish to make it clear that your main intention is to inform, while acknowledging the offensive nature of the information.
You're not trying to prevent the person from being offended, you're just trying to let them know why you're saying what you're saying.
Whether this is useful or not depends on the individual I guess. Motive and intent are important to some people, and not so much to others.
"Matter cannpt be created or destroyed so something must have created it."
Wait, what? How can you assume something created it after just saying it cannot be created? And also, how do we know the universe even came from nothing? What if it didn't come from nothing? What if there is no such thing as nothing?
If it's perfectly reasonable for one to believe in an eternally existing complex deity, then I see no reason why another cannot believe in eternally existing simple natural forces.
Then if it is made up, then there is no point to be afraid of it and, therefore, cannot be scare tactic.
Agreed; but young children are rarely in a position to make that distinction. A very young child will be absolutely dependent upon its parents and will have unwavering trust in their words.
Parents would do well to choose their words carefully during a child's formative years, in my opinion.
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised."
~George F. Will
While some religions may be atheistic, atheism in and of itself, is not a religion. Likewise, there are many religions which are theistic in nature while theism in and of itself, is not a religion.
If you were to simply identify yourself as a theist when asked which religion you followed, one could only conclude that you believed in a god, at the very minimum. But which god? Maybe you believe in many gods? You could be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or maybe Wicca, or a practitioner of some Hellenistic beliefs. Maybe you believe in and worship the gods found in ancient Norse mythology.
If you identify yourself as an atheist, however, people have a tendency to assume they know exactly what your beliefs are. I suppose this is because religions atheistic in nature are less numerous and therefore are not as well known.
People create problems.
People create war.
People then use war in an attempt to solve the problems they themselves created.
War is like treating the symptom instead of the cause in medicine. You may think you've solved the problem, but at best, you've only managed to cover it up, temporarily.
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” ~Mark Twain
I believe that consciousness and the sense of self are dependent on the physiological functions of the brain. Once these functions are terminated, the sense of self ceases to exist. Death is non-existence, in the same way that one is non-existent in the time before their inception.
Believing in God is similar to a scientist believing dark matter and dark energy is present; we know it's there, we can test it, but we cannot see it, nor feel it (physically), nor taste it, [ECT].
So what's the problem?
The problem is the four words I bolded in your statement above. "We can test it."
We know that light can be bent in the presence of enough matter- this is called gravitational lensing. We can see several instances of gravitational lensing in many images taken from the Hubble Space Telescope. If we can see how much the light is being bent, and know how much matter it takes to bend light that much, then we know how much matter there is. But, when we look with all the different tools we have, we don't see enough matter to cause this bending of light. There must be matter we don't "see" causing it; and, since we can't see it, we call it dark matter. We can test it by observing it's interaction with things we can see, and we can measure it out to accounting for some 80% of the matter in the known universe.
Can you show me a test for "measuring" God? If not, then no; they're not similar.
Anyway, I feel one of the big problems with the application of "God of the gaps" thinking is that it's based on the premise that mankind (or, more specifically, science) currently knows all it will ever know about the universe. That we're at the apex of knowledge today, and we'll never ever learn anything new. That, a thousand years from now, none of the "gaps" will have been filled in.
If history is any indication, this is a very unstable foundation to base any line of thinking on. Just think of how many supernatural explanations have been superseded by scientific explanations. Now, try to think of how many scientific explanations have been superseded by supernatural explanations.
If you believe science knows only 4 percent, and will never know any more than that, I'd like to know how you come to such a conclusion. Conversely, if you believe science knows 4 percent, but eventually will learn more, then I'd like to know how you determine what the limit is. Will we ever know 5 percent? 10 percent? How about 50 percent? 75? How do you know where we'll stop? And how do you know none of the "gaps" God currently explains won't be filled in by that point?
And that's the problem with "God of the gaps" logic. Rather than supporting your hypothesis with testable evidence, you rely on the lack of knowledge from a competing hypothesis as being sufficient support. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You actually have to show evidence that you're right, not just that the other person could be wrong.
Would you agree that they would see their child again?
If they were asking me for my honest opinion, the best I could say is "maybe."
Obviously ,it isn't a known fact one way or the other; but it's been my experience that whenever something sounds a little too good to be true, it's usually because it is.
As such, I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to the grandiose promises of infinite paradise some religions tend to make concerning the afterlife.
Simply offer my condolences for their loss; no reason to kick someone while they're down.
Now, if they specifically asked me for my thoughts, and were willing to engage in such discourse, I suppose I'd indulge them.
My opinion is that it really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what your religious stance is on the afterlife. Losing a loved one hurts; a lot.
Let's examine why this is.
Firstly, it's not because you feel sorry for the deceased. If you believe they truly are "in a better place," then why should you. And if you believe they simply no longer exist as a conscious entity, the same applies. In either case, they cannot be said to be unhappy or suffering in any way.
The pain is because, irrespective of your beliefs concerning the afterlife, you still have to endure the rest of this life without them. That's what hurts. It's not that they won't get to experience certain things in life; it's that you won't get to experience them experiencing these things. The interaction with them is gone, and the hole it leaves is significant.
Believing you'll be reunited in the afterlife certainly has to offer some comfort; because it means the pain you feel in this life is only temporary. The same, however, is also true in an atheistic view. In either case, the pain is only temporary.
But it still hurts, and you don't have to share the same religious beliefs to have empathy for someone in pain.
Seem to have no issues with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity when trusting the accuracy of their GPS devices. Such accuracy is only possible by taking into account gravitational time dilation.
Seem to have no problems with the Germ Theory of Disease when getting their flu shots.
Mention the "E" word though, and they get all worked up over it being "just a theory."
I don't think so.
If a religion is truly peaceful, the more extreme a person follows it, the more peaceful they should become.
With religions like Islam, the opposite seems to be true.
Something like Jainism, I would say, is a religion of peace. The more fundamentalist or extremist a Jain becomes, the less likely they are inclined towards violence (accidentally stepping on an insect would be like committing a mortal sin to them).
So, how a field of virtual particles came to exist?
Given these particles appear to pop in and out of existence even in the absence of matter and energy, it's possible they have been doing so forever.
That's why said : "No one should deny the existence of God if the one is unable to prove the non-existence of God." Are you ready to prove that there is no God? If you are not able, why you say that, there is no God?
I think I agree with you here, in a sense. If you make the assertion that absolutely no god(s) exists, then you probably should be able to offer proof. Likewise, if you assert that a god(s) absolutely does exist, then you should also be able to offer proof.
I think there is a difference, however, between the following statements:
1.) I don't believe a god(s) exists.
2.) I believe no god(s) exists.
It's not so much I'm asserting there is no god; it's just that I'm not convinced there is. Sure, there's no slam-dunk super-proof that God doesn't exist; but I think there's enough evidence to at least justify a reasonable doubt.
And that's really all I'm advertising... a reasonable doubt.
When I was in school, I hated homework probably as much as students have always hated it.
It wasn't the concept I disliked as much as it was the application. In concept, as already mentioned, homework is really just practice. The more you practice at something, the better you'll generally become. It makes sense.
What I found most annoying was the disproportionate value homework had on one's overall grade; in many cases, completely eclipsing the value of quizzes and exams. I didn't see why a person who aced every test but declined to waste time on homework should face the proposition of receiving a failing grade. I mean, we're talking about practice here. (cue up Allen Iverson rant)
Conversely, there's no way it should make sense for a person to do poorly on every test, but receive a high grade in the class just because they did every homework assignment.
I'm not sure banning homework would be helpful, but it's application could certainly stand to be re-assessed
I said no such thing. But, I'll play along anyway.
The first thing we need to square away is what, exactly, you mean by "nothing." I'm going to assume you mean something along the lines of the absence of matter or energy of any kind; and maybe even the absence of empty space itself.
What if I argued that nothingness, in this sense, doesn't exist. That the universe didn't "come from nothing," because there is no such thing as nothing. What if there was always empty space, in which matter and energy could come into existence. And what if, in this empty space, there was a quantum foam or quantum field of some sort which also always existed (and still exists today). A field of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence.
The universe could be the result of random fluctuations in this eternally existing quantum field.
The point I was trying to make is that we don't know enough about such things to say with any certainty that the universe could be created in this manner. We also don't know enough to say with any certainty that it could not.
A conclusion can be logically valid, and still be false, if any of the premises are inaccurate. The variables regarding the creation of the universe are not known with any certainty, and so, using them as a foundational premise in an argument either for or against God means you can come to a logically valid conclusion and still be incorrect.
Such arguments aren't good enough evidence for me.
I would require hard data. Testable, measurable, scientifically verifiable evidence.
The evidence would have to be incredibly strong. I mean, there is evidence of people being abducted by extra-terrestrials; yet, a majority of the population scoffs at the idea.
There are mountains of geological, biological, and cosmological scientific evidence suggesting the Earth to be billions of years old; yet, there are plenty of people who believe it to be only a few thousand years of age.
I would need a little more than a few "How else do you explain this?" quandaries to convince me, unfortunately.
I would need to see some sort of observable, quantifiable, scientifically valid evidence, the likes of which would surely send shock waves through the scientific community. The kind that usually sees the discoverers awarded with a Nobel Prize.
The kind of philosophic arguments and logical proofs typically offered up as evidence are fun to debate over and all that; but, ultimately, they are not convincing enough. Most of the time they are based on premises and presuppositions that are far too speculative, and not nearly understood well enough to serve as solid foundations of convincing proofs.
So, hard evidence (testable, verifiable)... not soft evidence (philosophical argument) is, I think, what I would require.
Remember, other than lack of phsycial evidence, what else is there to support the atheist and similar mindsets.
I think it's already been mentioned, but there doesn't need to be any other reason to reject a religious claim (or any kind of claim, for that matter). To paraphrase Bertrand Russel: "If something is true, then you should believe it. If it isn't true, then you shouldn't believe it. If you can't tell whether or not it is true, then you should reserve judgment until you can."
What's the harm in believing something despite having no evidence? What's wrong with believing something simply because it makes you feel good?
I think most atheists would agree that, in the privacy of one's own mind, it's not much of a big deal. Believe whatever you want, however far-fetched it might be. The problems arise once these beliefs start having influence over people other than yourself. When important decisions start being made based not on empirical data and rational thought, but on fanatical religious beliefs and superstition.
It's difficult to make a good decision based on bad information. Without supporting evidence, a religious claim has a good chance of being bad information. How is this harmful? It depends on the decision being made.
Yeah, I think I can agree with this sentiment. This doesn't invalidate the actual research however, which is published in scientifically peer-reviewed papers.
http://www.genetics.org/content/147/4/
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/4/
and here's more recent one:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/
Here's an interesting article with references concluding that; based off recent genetic research, a Biblical Adam and Eve never existed. (Also that the Noah's Ark story cannot be taken literally). http://biologos.org/blog/
Basically, it shows that the human population could not have originated from a single breeding pair, nor has the breeding population ever been below a few thousand, based on 3 different genetic studies.
It seems to me that, if the Adam and Eve story must be relegated to being an analogy or myth, not to be taken literally, than the entire foundation of Christianity is on very shaky ground. It would appear, based on the evidence, that this is exactly the case.
It is also interesting to note this article is found on the Biologos website- an Evangelical Christian apologetics site, dedicated to reconciling scientific discoveries with Christian scripture. Of course, they have yet to make an official stance on the matter.
I think it was Sam Harris who I first heard make this point, but it goes something along the lines of this:
Why is (insert Holy Book here) considered a work of the divine? Is it merely because it is so profound that it could not have been the work of men? If so, here is something to consider.
Isaac Newton spent the period between the summer of 1665 and the spring of 1667, working in isolation during an outbreak of plague in England. When he emerged from solitude, he had invented the differential and integral calculus, established the field of optics, and discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation. Many consider this to be the most awe-inspiring display of human intelligence in the history of mankind.
Even now, over 300 years later, one must be exceptionally well-educated to fully appreciate the depth of Newton's achievements. Yet, no one doubts Newton's work was the product of human effort.
It took over 200 years of continued ingenuity by some of the most brilliant minds who ever lived to improve upon Newton's work. How difficult would it be to improve the Bible? It would be trivially easy for even the layman to improve upon it scientifically, historically, ethically, and even spiritually.
Considering the Bible or Qur'an to be so profound as to rule out the possibility of human authorship seems silly when compared to Newton's work - a work accepted as being of human authorship.
1. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to a closed system.
2. A closed system receives no outside energy.
3.The Earth receives outside energy from the Sun.
4. The Earth is not a closed system.
5. The second law of thermodynamics does not contradict the theory of evolution.
"I can use contemporary logic to disprove the theory of relativity in regards to the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. If I apply force to an already moving body, then the moving body will begin to move faster - therefore if I apply force to something that moves at the speed of light, it will move faster than the speed of light, therefore it is theoretically possible to move faster than the speed of light. Science, however, says that this is not the case."
This statement is only logical if you disregard relativity.
I'm no scientist, and this is just my basic understanding of it, so I could very well be wrong. Feel free to correct me if this is the case.
As an object with mass approaches the speed of light, its relative mass increases. At 99.999999% the speed of light, it's relative mass would be near infinite. For a force to push the object as fast as, or faster than light, the force would have to be infinite.
It is theoretically possible for something without mass to move faster than light however.
"If he only did easy, logical, possible things, I don't think he would be worshiped as a god."
I believe all of the actions attributed to God in the Bible are logically possible things. There are no logical absurdities, no paradoxical impossibilities, only physical absurdities and impossibilities. God is able to create and manipulate the laws of physics, but not the laws of logic. Of course, we are not told specifically that God cannot be illogical in the Bible; but we are given no examples to the contrary. At least, none that I am aware of at the moment. Though, the idea of "The Trinity" may come close, come to think of it.
"So I go with the standard definition of omnipotence; that any being who is all powerful can do whatever the fuck they want."
I would still contend that this definition of omnipotence is self-contradicting, and cannot exist in reality. It could exist conceptually though, I suppose; and if you're willing to disregard God's omni-benevolence, then at least a conceptual version of God could be said to exist.
For obvious reasons, an atheist or agnostic is much more likely to accept this than a theist, which was more or less my intention.
The theist either accepts that the classic definition of omnipotence is a logical contradiction of itself, and could not exist, or rationalize the definition and accept that God cannot be omni-benevolent and still be omnipotent at the same time under the new, rationalized definition.
"You're putting limitations on god based on the rules of the reality we live in..."
Basically, yes. I think you have to. I believe that, in order for something to exist, it must be subject to the nature of existence. Existence behaves a certain way, and anything that can be said to exist is subject to this behavior. Axioms such as the Law of Identity are ways we describe this behavior, and serve as a basis for logic.
If something is not subject to these "laws of existence," or "laws of reality," then I don't think it can be said to exist, as it's not meeting the requirements of existence. Obviously, since theists want to show that God exists, they must allow for God to be subject the nature of what it is to exist. Thus, God cannot create or do things that are not consistent with the nature of existence.
This is why the simplest definition of omnipotence, "X can do everything," isn't valid. It doesn't exclude things that are logically impossible.
So, the definition changes to "X can do everything that is logically possible to do." This is still a problem though, because God is not just limited to the laws of existence. God is limited (mostly) to his moral nature as presented in the Bible. God cannot lie, God cannot commit an immoral act, etc. This means there are some things that are logically possible but not possible for a being with God's traditional properties.
So, the definition changes again. "X can do everything that is logically possible for a being with X's defining properties." This is the definition I was running with here, so the problem is obvious. Once you allow omnipotence to be relativised to a set of properties, it opens up the possibility for multiple omnipotent beings. You could have a being whose defining property is the inability to do anything, and it would be compatible with this definition of omnipotence.
The definition can evolve further, stating that "X can do everything that is logically possible for a being with X's defining properties to do; and there is no being conceivable with greater powers than X." But this definition runs into the same problem as the second. There are logically possible things God cannot do due to His being morally perfect. A being could be conceived that is like God, but isn't morally perfect. This being could do everything God could, as well as perform morally evil acts. This being would be more powerful than God.
"I wasn't actually referring to the Judeo Christian God, but whatever."
My apologies. I should have made it clearer from the start that my intention was to discuss omnipotence as it relates to the Judeo Christian God. Albeit in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner.
"For a start, suicide is not an act of power, it's an act of lack of power."
Either way, it is still an act. An act which God cannot perform due to His nature.
"And I would argue an omni-benevolent being does have the power to sin, be immoral, etc, but chooses not to, due to his nature. In the same way that I have the power to kill someone, but I choose not to, due to my nature."
But it's not the same. God is omni-benevolent, you are not (well, at least I don't think you are). If it is not in your nature to be omni-benevolent, then of course you could choose. If God's nature is omni-benevolent, as it is often asserted as being, I don't see how God has the same choice. God must act in accordance with His nature, and if His nature is to be perfectly good, then He must be perfectly good.
"The only thing God cannot do is the logically impossible, due to his nature."
I disagree. We are told quite specifically in Hebrews 6:18 that "it is impossible for God to lie..." I do not believe lying is a logically impossible act. God also cannot be immoral, or commit a sinful act. God cannot commit suicide. God cannot do these things, not because they are logically impossible, but because they are simply inconsistent with His nature.
Just a little play on words showing how difficult a concept like omnipotence becomes when it must be consistent with God.
"A reasonable assumption."
Stated specifically in First Timothy, chapter 2, just before all the stuff about how women should be submissive to men, and can only be saved through childbearing. "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."
It seems we are in agreement with the first premise. It also seems we are in agreement with the second premise.
"Who's we? Because millions of people do."
I guess I did word this somewhat ambiguously. Perhaps it would be more clear to replace the words "us" and "we" with "everyone." Everyone does not know "the truth." There are an estimated 6.9 billion people on Earth. An estimated 2 billion of them are Christian (in one way or another). The other 4.9 billion are not Christian. I find it highly unlikely that these 4.9 billion people know that Christianity is the truth, and are simply rebelling against it out of spite. I find it much more likely that they simply do not know it is the truth. Maybe they've never heard of it, or maybe they cannot distinguish it as any more true than the many other religious claims they've heard.
I take it you can agree with the premise now?
If all three premises are correct, and the conclusion logically follows the premises, then I believe this argument is a logically valid reason not to believe in God. Either God does not want us to know the truth, cannot make us know the truth, or does not exist.
"That's correct, but what ever happened to that Lucifer guy?"
Whatever happened to him was a direct result of him exercising his free will. He knew God existed and still willfully opposed Him, despite the consequences. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven," as the quote goes.
I am certain that if everyone were to know that God existed, in the same way they know the sun and moon exist, there would still be those who would willfully oppose Him. Most people who oppose God now, do so not willfully, but out of ignorance. If you're going to suffer eternal hellfire, it should be because you willfully opposed God, not because you simply didn't know He existed.
It is simply against my nature to lift a car with my bare hands. Like I said, I cannot do things that are against my nature, just like God can't do things that are against His nature. There may be more things that go against my nature, than against God's nature. So the question becomes; how many things does it take to make you not omnipotent?
None of those quotes are what I've said, and I'm pretty sure I've done a poor job wording my thoughts. This argument seems to be very heavy on rhetoric, and contains many semantical loop-holes. Plus, it's getting late for me, so thought is kinda hazy lol.
Anyway, I'll try word this better.
"'If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist...
But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true'"
Again, they do not have a nature, they are nature. If you are talking strictly about the statements themselves, then yes, they are conceptual. But the statements are referring to something which is not conceptual. The nature of existence. So let's say that "logical absolutes" are concepts; which we use to describe the way we have seen existence behave.
Everything that exists, behaves according to the nature of existence. This includes the physical universe, as well as any gods attributed to it's creation. As long as God "exists," He couldn't have designed existence. Any god that exists, is subject to the way existence behaves, not responsible for it.
Why does existence behave the way it behaves then? Well, I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for anybody who knows.
Strip away any world view- any creation theory, and you will see that they all begin with the same assumption: That existence behaves the way it does inexplicably, without cause; without reason. It has to be possible for something to exist, before something can begin to exist. The nature of existence has to precede anything beginning to exist, including God.
If God is timeless, and didn't "begin to exist," but does exist, then it follows that the nature of existence is also timeless, and also didn't "begin to exist," but exists.
They did not come into existence, they are not things that exist. They are the nature of things that exist.
They are not a result of the physical universe, they are descriptions of how the physical universe (or rather, existence) behaves. It would behave the way it behaves whether or not we were here to describe it.
They are not things which come into existence the same way that God's nature isn't a thing that comes into existence. God's nature isn't a separate thing from God, it is just a description of how God behaves.
Concerning the transcendental argument.
I would argue that logical absolutes are not conceptual by nature. I would argue that logical absolutes are not things with any nature at all. They are not things with a nature, they are the nature of things.
And it is unlikely God created them considering He is bound by them. I'll try to give my reasoning.
1. God is a thing, and thus, has a nature.
2. God cannot do anything that goes against His nature.
3. It is against God's nature to lie.
4. God can create Man, who can lie.
5. If God can create Man, who can lie, then God can create other things that go against His nature.
6. God cannot create an illogical object such as a squared circle.
7. There must be some other nature; separate from God, preventing Him from doing this.
8. If God is bound by this other nature, then it must have preceded Him, and He could not have created it.
9. If God did not create this other nature, then it is not evidence of His existence.
This other nature, is the nature of existence itself. Logical absolutes are how we describe the nature of existence itself. Logical absolutes cannot serve as evidence for God.
The fact that God is bound by logical absolutes actually argues against His existence.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Problem of Non-Belief:
1. If God exists, he wants us to know "the truth."
2. If God exists, he has the power to make us know "the truth."
3. We do not know "the truth."
4. God does not exist.
Free will does not counter this argument effectively. Knowledge does not preclude free will. One can know God exists, and still choose to rebel against him (i.e. fallen angels such as Lucifer).
Effectively, people can, and indeed have, "traveled to the future." This is through an effect known as time dilation. Basically, the faster an object moves, the slower time around it passes; yet, to the object itself, time seems normal.
For example: If a crew of astronauts were to fly around space at near the speed of light for around 1 year and then returned to Earth, they would find that, while they experienced 1 year of time, the Earth had experienced around 22 years.
Sergei Avdeyev holds the current record for time dilation experienced by a human. Spending 747 days aboard the Mir space station, traveling at a speed of around 27,360 km/h, Avdeyev has aged about 0.02 seconds less than a person on Earth.
Doesn't sound like much, but consider that 27,000 km/h is a tiny, tiny fraction of the speed of light.
Gravity also effects time in a similar way. The higher the gravity, the slower time passes.
I guess, for me, you have to examine what the desired result of spanking a child is. Most people say it is "to teach them right from wrong." I think the truth, however, is that spanking is the quickest and easiest way to get a child (or pet) to stop doing something you don't want them doing. It is the easy way out. It is lazy. It also does nothing to teach right from wrong.
Physical punishment is one of, if not the most ineffective methods for teaching humans right and wrong (especially children). It may seem effective, particularly with animals and pets, but because humans tend to have a much different thought process than most animals, the result is not ideal.
What inevitably happens, is the child comes away thinking something along the lines of "My parents disapprove of this action. My parents will beat me if they become aware of my performing of this action. If my parents are not aware I have performed this action, then I will not be beaten." There is no concept of right and wrong here, only fear of physical punishment, and ways one can avoid it.
What you want them to be thinking is something more like "I disapprove of this action. It does not matter if my parents (or anyone else) become aware of my performing of this action, because I am aware of my performing of it; and I believe it is wrong."
I feel a child should be taught to think critically from as early an age as possible, and that every attempt to explain the rightness and wrongness of an action should be made. A punishment and reward system may work great with animals, but humans should have a deeper concept of right and wrong. One that relies more on thought, and less on fear.
Okay, here's one. This is specific to the Judeo-Christian god.
Timothy 2:4 tells us that God wants all to be saved and to know the truth. The "truth" entails at least the following: That God exists; that Jesus was divine, Lord, and Savior; that Jesus died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.
In order for one to be "saved," one must accept at least this much.
There are billions of people alive today who do not know this truth. They may have never heard of it, or cannot distinguish it as any truer than any other religious claims they've heard.
Most of these people cannot accept "the truth" without knowing it is truth, and therefore cannot be "saved." If everyone knew "the truth", more people would be saved.
It is within God's power to endow these people with certain knowledge of "the truth." This does not violate free-will as knowledge does not preclude free-will. One can know God exists, and still rebel against him. (case in point: fallen angels).
In short:
1. If God exists, he desires us to know "the truth."
2. If God exists, he has the power to make us know "the truth."
3. We do not know "the truth."
4. God does not exist.
"Premise 1: The definition of religion is 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.'"
Under this definition, I think it would be safe to consider virtually everyone religious. So yeah, I guess you could consider atheism religious under this context. But, that's not really what people mean when discussing a particular religion, is it?
I would use an alternate definition: "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects(i.e. the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion)."
From this I would conclude that theism is not a religion, but could be a basis for a religion. Likewise, atheism is not a religion, but could be a basis for a religion (I would consider Naturalism a religion, for which atheism could be a basis.)
I agree, the standards for obtaining a driver's license are too lax. One drive around town clearly demonstrates this lol.
Sill, I'd prefer lax standards to no standards. If filling out some registration forms, and passing a criminal background check was all one needed to do in order to own and operate a vehicle, I'd bet the roads would be far more hazardous.
No, I am saying Srom1883's reply was a copy/paste job. You can find the exact same statements, word for word here, a third of the way down the page; numbers 102 and 103.
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear who I was referring to, and apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you.
I don't know, all the semantic gymnastics confuses me as well.
Considering the following statements:
1.) I believe a god exists.
2.) I do not believe a god exists.
3.) I believe no god exists.
I'm guessing most people associate #1 with theism, #2 with agnosticism, and #3 with atheism?
1.) Convince fat man to voluntarily sacrifice himself to save teens. If he refuses, do nothing.
2.) If, despite his close proximity, neither he nor anyone else hears or responds to all the shouting; wonder if it's all just in my head. Do nothing.
Assuming this is not in my mind, and time is of the essence, then my reaction would likely be one of instinctual reaction rather than rational thought. In this case, a couple possibilities:
a.) If all involved are complete strangers... do nothing.
b.) If at least one of the young teens is not a stranger, odds of pushing the fat man increases with closeness of relationship.
c.) If at least one of the young teens is a close relative or friend, the fat man dies with almost 100% certainty.
I think this is probably how I would realistically react if under pressure with no time to think. Interesting to consider why I might react this way, and how I might act differently if there were more time to think and consider all the variables.
Reading, because your imagination tends to be more active than while watching television, which is usually a very passive experience.
Though it's not listed here, I will say that I tend to enjoy a good, story driven video game over reading or watching television, most of the time.
