Of course, but that very legitimate criteria is the one that makes people attempt to discredit all other guesses
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Existence is always 50/50
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Of course, but that very legitimate criteria is the one that makes people attempt to discredit all other guesses
PureX
Veteran Member
I actually think the criteria of value as opposed to the criteria of righteousness is the more reasoned criteria, with the best effect. The problem-makers are those who insist on believing that their preferred guess as to the creation, sustenance, and purpose of existence must be taken everyone else as 'the truth' because it's been taken by themselves as 'the truth'. Whereas if we all would just let go of this delusion that we can or do know the 'the truth' about the origin, sustenance, and purpose of existence then we can perhaps agree to respect the choices we each make based on the value our choices provide for us.
I am not religious, but I spend a lot of time on here defending those who are because those who aren't insist on ignoring the fact that anything is possible, including the religionist's "God of the gaps", "God of the Bible", or any other gods they migh profer. And that being the case, we are all choosing the scenario that benefits us most, religious or otherwise. So the real questions we should be discussing are not about about who's right, but about who's scenario is the more effective according the their own needs and desires, and who's criteria for effectiveness provides the best result for the most people.
First paragraph good
Second not so good. Who decides which scenario is most effective? It is my view that the god guess has been and still is harmful to society. It causes division. The best results are decided by the winners.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
No. Just because there are two options, does not mean the chances are 50/50.
If you have a shower, is there a 50/50 chance you will slip and crack your head open? Of course not. If there was, you'd be slipping and cracking your head open half of all the times you have a shower.
It seems to me that something had to exist.
Since God is portrayed as a sentient being, which if the example of H sap sap is any guide, makes [him] immensely complex, I'm inclined to Occam [him] out.
My own hypothesis is that mass-energy has always existed, and that life, the universe and everything are all consequent forms and properties of mass-energy. Thus spacetime exists because mass-energy does, and not vice versa. This greatly simplifies things, so it would be nice if I could demonstrate that it's correct. Until then, it's simply an hypothesis I like. (It has one great advantage over God, in that we know mass-energy exists.)
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Of course, we can also use this apparent infinite complexity of God to prove he is unnecessary in another way. If we claim God is required because the universe, as a big and complex thing, couldn't exist by itself, then we can also claim that God, being bigger and more complex, also couldn't exist by himself.
If we say that a big and complex God can exist by himself, then the universe, which is not as big and less complex, can also exist by itself.
In either case, God is not required.
LIIA
Well-Known Member
You may question the reason/cause for a relative (caused) existence but the question doesn’t apply to the absolute, causeless existence. The first cause is causeless.
We witness a “realm" of relative existence. In which, it’s a fact that every existence is contingent on a cause. The collective existence of relative contingent entities (the universe) doesn't account for its own existence. The universe didn’t always exist, it has a beginning (a creation point), it may be called a singularity, but in fact its just a name for something that is totally beyond our understanding, all the rules that apply within our realm, totally break down at this point, no matter, no space, no time, no physical laws. The totality of the contingent entities (the universe) coming to being at the specific starting point has to be causally dependent. The cause at this point is totally beyond our own realm of existence, beyond space-time, matter or any thing physical. The first cause exists beyond time, with no beginning and not subject to physical laws/causation; In other words, an absolute causeless existence.
No, we have to differentiate between the relative (caused) existence and the absolute (causeless) existence.
its a fact that we exist. Our existence is in a realm of entirely contingent entities. Collectively, this realm is causally dependent. This dependency mandates a need for an absolute first cause that exists beyond our contingent realm, beyond time, with no beginning, causeless.
PureX
Veteran Member
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
That simply is not true. Most religions respect the beliefs of other religions, and the right of everyone to choose their own beliefs. You are allowing the anomalies to capture all your attention.
That is simply not true, the history of religious wars is testament to that. The christian hatred of islam, very visible on this forum is testament to that. The often heard cry "but he/she/they are not christian is testament to that.
I am allowing my own experience.
Shall we say, the alleged infinite complexity?
Yes indeed. I'm also curious to know how God evolved to [his] alleged complexity.
Likewise, the version that God created the universe out of an authentic nothing ─ no energy, no dimensions, total negation.
How can there be total negation if God's around somewhere?
Pete in Panama
Active Member
Or not.
What's going on? Are we saying that reality demands 'object permanence' or are we saying that the existence of an unobserved object is meaningless? Are we saying that reality includes locality or do objects exist in undefined locations?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that MY TRUTH is always right and it includes (or precludes) both object permanence and locality. What I am saying is that most people simply assume what works for them in their daily life and it's not an issue because it's how we work, and adults deal with it as it is.
Pete in Panama
Active Member
Wikipedia lists as the world's third largest religion something they call Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheism. If we measure the value of a religion in terms of the bad conduct of nations where the religion is supported then we need to remember that nations that have made Atheism their state religion have ended up being the most murderous:
Dear oh dear ─ flogging this poor dead horse?Wikipedia lists as the world's third largest religion something they call Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheism. If we measure the value of a religion in terms of the bad conduct of nations where the religion is supported then we need to remember that nations that have made Atheism their state religion have ended up being the most murderous:
The point is that none of those dictatorships killed anyone in the name of atheism. They did it for power.
Not that this makes them very different to the most prolific religious killers, but the latter were carrying crosses or whatever, declaring that God was on their side (an argument won by big battalions, as we know) and forcing conversions on the conquered on pain of death.
If one war in Europe has the strongest claim for vilest, cruelest, most viciously murderous war, it may well be the Thirty Years War, which, you recall, was Catholic Christians vs The Rest (or vice versa, if you prefer).
Wikipedia lists as the world's third largest religion something they call Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheism. If we measure the value of a religion in terms of the bad conduct of nations where the religion is supported then we need to remember that nations that have made Atheism their state religion have ended up being the most murderous:
Hitler was christian catholic with vatican backing
Stalin an orthodox christian
You seem to be confusing nationalism with atheism
So how about the 800 million or so killed in religious wars throughout recorded history where either one side or both fought to impose their religious belief on the other?
Pete in Panama
Active Member
Neat! That means we can say that none of those killed by nations of other state religions were killed for religion either.
Good to know we're in complete agreement.
Hey, why stop there? As long as we're making up numbers w/o citation we can just go ahead & claim that every single human in on earth (and elsewhere for that matter) was killed by religion.
Yes, i though you would go into full incredulity mode of claiming made up numbers so here is a list of wars in which one side ot the other or both were fighting in the name of religion
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000
Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000
Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Congolese Genocide (King Leopold II): 13,000,000
Croatia, 1991-92
Crusades, 1095-1291 - 6,000,000
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000
English Civil War, 1642-46
First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000
French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000
Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq War: 500,000
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000
Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92 250,000
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Muslim Conquests of India: 80,000,000
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s- 1,000,000
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
Rwandan Genocide: 800,000
Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834 - 5,000
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000
Thirty Years War, 1618-48 - 11,500,000
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Didn't you read my post? As I pointed out in my post, believers, like atheists,are good at killing for power; but the forced conversion thing is a religious specialty.
Didn't you read my post? I didn't cite any numbers, with or without citation.
Didn't you read my post? Please do me the courtesy of accusing me of things I actually said.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yeah but.....are we not altogether .....here
100%