Happy Atheist Forum

The God Hypothesis. What is it?

Most people who self identify as atheists state that they do so because they have never been shown sufficient and/or convincing evidence to support the proposition that a god or gods exist.

So, from the ground up as it were, what is the god hypothesis and what evidence is there to support the hypothesis?

The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.
Everything else is speculation and gives us a bit of understanding of God.

The Taoist describe the Tao as 'that which cannot be described, if it can be described then it's not the Tao'.
The Tao is seen as the underlying natural order of the Universe, one can't describe the Tao but he can experience or know the Tao.

As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.
Ibn' Arabi (d.1240) once said that 'God lowers Himself out of His mercy to the image that His servants makes of Him.'
That is very close to modern western thought (People made up God).

For me personally the proof comes from three aspects.

- The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.
- The human being.
- The Cosmos we perceive with all it's forms of life.

And with the last two I do not mean the biological or chemical complexity.
Instead, I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.
Let's say that I see the whole spectrum of Ying and Yang or Tanzih and Tasbih and so on
spread in nature but concentrated within the human heart.
Our inner nature manifests itself in the reality we perceive; what we do and see is what we are in a certain way.

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.

How do you know that god is the source of all? You read it somewhere?
It seems you are very close to being agnostic.

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
Everything else is speculation

So why go to church or mosque? Do you like speculation?

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.

Really, is god a he? Maybe a she, or an it or a shemale, maybe god swings both ways or no ways at all. It's all just speculation right?

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.

If aliens pay us a visit, and they are more intelligent and more evolved (created) superior to us, would you then give up your belief in god?
Or would you shift your perspective of humans and realise that we are here simply to test the faith of god's beings, the one's made in his image, the ones we call aliens.

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.
Everything else is speculation and gives us a bit of understanding of God.

The Taoist describe the Tao as 'that which cannot be described, if it can be described then it's not the Tao'.
The Tao is seen as the underlying natural order of the Universe, one can't describe the Tao but he can experience or know the Tao.

As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.
Ibn' Arabi (d.1240) once said that 'God lowers Himself out of His mercy to the image that His servants makes of Him.'
That is very close to modern western thought (People made up God).

For me personally the proof comes from three aspects.

- The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.
- The human being.
- The Cosmos we perceive with all it's forms of life.

And with the last two I do not mean the biological or chemical complexity.
Instead, I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.
Let's say that I see the whole spectrum of Ying and Yang or Tanzih and Tasbih and so on
spread in nature but concentrated within the human heart.
Our inner nature manifests itself in the reality we perceive; what we do and see is what we are in a certain way.

Thank you for taking the time to reply ISoK.

Imagine for a moment I want to buy a car and you are a car salesman. Your 'pitch' is approximatly as follows.

The only thing I can say for sure about my car is that my car is the best car and ideal for all user.
The evidence I have for this is that:-
- Everybody likes cars so mine must be good.
- The Human being.
- All the cars in the universe.

ISoK, if you were selling me a car you'd have to do a lot better than that, and I hope that if somebody tried to sell you a car using the same mythology as you are trying to 'sell me' god you'd tell the salesman to go take a hike.

Your opinion on the existence of god is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me, in the same way that the opinion of a car salesman on the car they are selling to me is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me and in the same way that Darwin's opinion on evolution is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me. You, the car salesman and Darwin have to lay out their evidences and proofs and I will make my mind up based on what is presented. I care not one jot what you think they mean. Your evidences and proofs need to stand on their own merits.

First you need to state what god is as the basis of your hypothesis. We can move on from there.
Can you do that for me please?

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.

??? I really don't see any evidence for the 'transcendent unity of religions', in fact I think the evidence points to the opposite being true. If all religions are united why have there been so many wars between them?
If you seriously believe in the 'transcendent unity of religions' that raises so many questions for me. Do you consider Allah to also be the same god as Zeus, Baal, Isis, Odin and Shiva? Why did the Taliban destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan if Buddhism is ultimately unified with Islam? Why aren't you allowed to promote any religion other than Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia if all other religions also lead to Allah? Why are the Yazidi persecuted by Muslims in Iraq if their religion is also ultimately your religion? Why did the early Christian emperors outlaw all other religions and destroy and close down all the pagan temples if those religions were all ultimately the same as Christianity? Why did Mohammed go around destroying the statues and temples of all the other Arabian gods if ultimately they were the same as Allah?

Why are non-Muslims persecuted in many Muslim countries if they ultimately follow the same religion? And why does the Quran contain literally dozens of (maybe even a hundred or more) lines saying that all unbelievers will burn in hell if ultimately they all also worship Allah? Given that atheism didn't really exist in the seventh century, the term 'unbeliever' refers to followers of different religions to Islam. Why does the Quran contain lines like;

'O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protector'

'fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)'

'O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque'

'Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle'

'If anyone invokes, besides Allah, Any other god, he has no proof therefor; and his reckoning will be only with his Lord! and verily the Unbelievers will fail to win through!'

'Yet they take (for worship) gods other than Allah, (hoping) that they might be helped!
They have not the power to help them: but they will be brought up (before Our Judgment-seat) as a troop (to be condemned).'

'Who set up another god beside Allah: Throw him into a severe Penalty' etc etc

Your belief in the 'transcendent unity of religions' appears to me to be in plain contradiction of your holy book and the word of your god!

Quote from: Tank on August 17, 2011, 07:30:37 AM

So, from the ground up as it were, what is the god hypothesis and what evidence is there to support the hypothesis?

If I was looking to answer 'the god hypothesis ' I'd probably start from the heavens down rather than the ground up ;) particularly as the earliest known gods were often linked to the stars, sun, moon and visible planets

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 18, 2011, 12:18:23 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 17, 2011, 07:30:37 AM

So, from the ground up as it were, what is the god hypothesis and what evidence is there to support the hypothesis?

If I was looking to answer 'the god hypothesis ' I'd probably start from the heavens down rather than the ground up ;) particularly as the earliest known gods were often linked to the stars, sun, moon and visible planets

:D quite right!

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 08:20:49 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.
Everything else is speculation and gives us a bit of understanding of God.

The Taoist describe the Tao as 'that which cannot be described, if it can be described then it's not the Tao'.
The Tao is seen as the underlying natural order of the Universe, one can't describe the Tao but he can experience or know the Tao.

As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.
Ibn' Arabi (d.1240) once said that 'God lowers Himself out of His mercy to the image that His servants makes of Him.'
That is very close to modern western thought (People made up God).

For me personally the proof comes from three aspects.

- The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.
- The human being.
- The Cosmos we perceive with all it's forms of life.

And with the last two I do not mean the biological or chemical complexity.
Instead, I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.
Let's say that I see the whole spectrum of Ying and Yang or Tanzih and Tasbih and so on
spread in nature but concentrated within the human heart.
Our inner nature manifests itself in the reality we perceive; what we do and see is what we are in a certain way.

Thank you for taking the time to reply ISoK.

Imagine for a moment I want to buy a car and you are a car salesman. Your 'pitch' is approximatly as follows.

The only thing I can say for sure about my car is that my car is the best car and ideal for all user.
The evidence I have for this is that:-
- Everybody likes cars so mine must be good.
- The Human being.
- All the cars in the universe.

ISoK, if you were selling me a car you'd have to do a lot better than that, and I hope that if somebody tried to sell you a car using the same mythology as you are trying to 'sell me' god you'd tell the salesman to go take a hike.

Your opinion on the existence of god is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me, in the same way that the opinion of a car salesman on the car they are selling to me is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me and in the same way that Darwin's opinion on evolution is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me. You, the car salesman and Darwin have to lay out their evidences and proofs and I will make my mind up based on what is presented. I care not one jot what you think they mean. Your evidences and proofs need to stand on their own merits.

First you need to state what god is as the basis of your hypothesis. We can move on from there.
Can you do that for me please?

Tank, as I said earlier you can't define God. If you can define it, then it's not God.
A definition takes certain elements from the reality we perceive and it places these elements in a certain order on an object.
In case of God, this is not possible how strange it may sound for the atheist.

(42:11)Naught in the universe is like Him.

Given all the attributes that different religions give Him; like All-Powerful, All-Seeing and so on is to express
that God is the Source of all. We see, but God sees all, we hear but God hears all.
We are Unreal compared to God, who is the only Real.

(28:88) All will perish but He.

Ultimately everything will return to the Source.

(10:56) He it is Who gives life and causes death, and to Him shall you all be returned.


Tank, it's quite hard for me to explain this.
It's like being on an Amish forum and explaining evolution and not knowing where to start.
So it's hard to squeeze it into a forum debate...

If you are genuinely interested then you should start by reading
'The transcedent unity of religions' by Frithjof Schuon.

Or you could comment on the creation myth of the Popol Vuh which I posted in
the thread 'Christianity & Islam'

In all other cases the debate will end in:

'Man was afraid of the unknown and of death, gave meaning and explanation to the environment
he lived in and at the same time he assured himself that gods were looking after him.
First the sun, clouds, lightning and so on were gods because he didn't understand the natural phenomenon.
Then the more he understood his environment the more the gods retreated and now God can't be found anywhere.'


Which is totally alien to the thought of the believer, God can still be found everywhere.

-Why are you afraid of lightning?
-Why are we in awe of a beautiful scenery?
-Why does the hyena tear his prey apart unlike the cheetah that makes sure his prey is dead before eating.

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:42:08 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 08:20:49 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.
Everything else is speculation and gives us a bit of understanding of God.

The Taoist describe the Tao as 'that which cannot be described, if it can be described then it's not the Tao'.
The Tao is seen as the underlying natural order of the Universe, one can't describe the Tao but he can experience or know the Tao.

As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.
Ibn' Arabi (d.1240) once said that 'God lowers Himself out of His mercy to the image that His servants makes of Him.'
That is very close to modern western thought (People made up God).

For me personally the proof comes from three aspects.

- The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.
- The human being.
- The Cosmos we perceive with all it's forms of life.

And with the last two I do not mean the biological or chemical complexity.
Instead, I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.
Let's say that I see the whole spectrum of Ying and Yang or Tanzih and Tasbih and so on
spread in nature but concentrated within the human heart.
Our inner nature manifests itself in the reality we perceive; what we do and see is what we are in a certain way.

Thank you for taking the time to reply ISoK.

Imagine for a moment I want to buy a car and you are a car salesman. Your 'pitch' is approximatly as follows.

The only thing I can say for sure about my car is that my car is the best car and ideal for all user.
The evidence I have for this is that:-
- Everybody likes cars so mine must be good.
- The Human being.
- All the cars in the universe.

ISoK, if you were selling me a car you'd have to do a lot better than that, and I hope that if somebody tried to sell you a car using the same mythology as you are trying to 'sell me' god you'd tell the salesman to go take a hike.

Your opinion on the existence of god is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me, in the same way that the opinion of a car salesman on the car they are selling to me is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me and in the same way that Darwin's opinion on evolution is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me. You, the car salesman and Darwin have to lay out their evidences and proofs and I will make my mind up based on what is presented. I care not one jot what you think they mean. Your evidences and proofs need to stand on their own merits.

First you need to state what god is as the basis of your hypothesis. We can move on from there.
Can you do that for me please?

Tank, as I said earlier you can't define God. If you can define it, then it's not God.
A definition takes certain elements from the reality we perceive and it places these elements in a certain order on an object.
In case of God, this is not possible how strange it may sound for the atheist.

(42:11)Naught in the universe is like Him.

Given all the attributes that different religions give Him; like All-Powerful, All-Seeing and so on is to express
that God is the Source of all. We see, but God sees all, we hear but God hears all.
We are Unreal compared to God, who is the only Real.

(28:88) All will perish but He.

Ultimately everything will return to the Source.

(10:56) He it is Who gives life and causes death, and to Him shall you all be returned.


Tank, it's quite hard for me to explain this.
It's like being on an Amish forum and explaining evolution and not knowing where to start.
So it's hard to squeeze it into a forum debate...

If you are genuinely interested then you should start by reading
'The transcedent unity of religions' by Frithjof Schuon.

Or you could comment on the creation myth of the Popol Vuh which I posted in
the thread 'Christianity & Islam'

In all other cases the debate will end in:

'Man was afraid of the unknown and of death, gave meaning and explanation to the environment
he lived in and at the same time he assured himself that gods were looking after him.
First the sun, clouds, lightning and so on were gods because he didn't understand the natural phenomenon.
Then the more he understood his environment the more the gods retreated and now God can't be found anywhere.'

If you can't define what god is, then I can safely ignore what you have to say about god and your opinion of what god is (or is not), says (or not says) or does (or does not do). Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating that god is a meaningless concept.

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 02:50:58 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:42:08 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 08:20:49 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.
Everything else is speculation and gives us a bit of understanding of God.

The Taoist describe the Tao as 'that which cannot be described, if it can be described then it's not the Tao'.
The Tao is seen as the underlying natural order of the Universe, one can't describe the Tao but he can experience or know the Tao.

As a believer, I think God is very different than what we think He is.
Ibn' Arabi (d.1240) once said that 'God lowers Himself out of His mercy to the image that His servants makes of Him.'
That is very close to modern western thought (People made up God).

For me personally the proof comes from three aspects.

- The transcendente unity of religions as many comparative scholars have noted.
- The human being.
- The Cosmos we perceive with all it's forms of life.

And with the last two I do not mean the biological or chemical complexity.
Instead, I see a hierarchy in nature with the human being as the top of that hierarchy.
Let's say that I see the whole spectrum of Ying and Yang or Tanzih and Tasbih and so on
spread in nature but concentrated within the human heart.
Our inner nature manifests itself in the reality we perceive; what we do and see is what we are in a certain way.

Thank you for taking the time to reply ISoK.

Imagine for a moment I want to buy a car and you are a car salesman. Your 'pitch' is approximatly as follows.

The only thing I can say for sure about my car is that my car is the best car and ideal for all user.
The evidence I have for this is that:-
- Everybody likes cars so mine must be good.
- The Human being.
- All the cars in the universe.

ISoK, if you were selling me a car you'd have to do a lot better than that, and I hope that if somebody tried to sell you a car using the same mythology as you are trying to 'sell me' god you'd tell the salesman to go take a hike.

Your opinion on the existence of god is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me, in the same way that the opinion of a car salesman on the car they are selling to me is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me and in the same way that Darwin's opinion on evolution is absolutely and utterly meaningless to me. You, the car salesman and Darwin have to lay out their evidences and proofs and I will make my mind up based on what is presented. I care not one jot what you think they mean. Your evidences and proofs need to stand on their own merits.

First you need to state what god is as the basis of your hypothesis. We can move on from there.
Can you do that for me please?

Tank, as I said earlier you can't define God. If you can define it, then it's not God.
A definition takes certain elements from the reality we perceive and it places these elements in a certain order on an object.
In case of God, this is not possible how strange it may sound for the atheist.

(42:11)Naught in the universe is like Him.

Given all the attributes that different religions give Him; like All-Powerful, All-Seeing and so on is to express
that God is the Source of all. We see, but God sees all, we hear but God hears all.
We are Unreal compared to God, who is the only Real.

(28:88) All will perish but He.

Ultimately everything will return to the Source.

(10:56) He it is Who gives life and causes death, and to Him shall you all be returned.


Tank, it's quite hard for me to explain this.
It's like being on an Amish forum and explaining evolution and not knowing where to start.
So it's hard to squeeze it into a forum debate...

If you are genuinely interested then you should start by reading
'The transcedent unity of religions' by Frithjof Schuon.

Or you could comment on the creation myth of the Popol Vuh which I posted in
the thread 'Christianity & Islam'

In all other cases the debate will end in:

'Man was afraid of the unknown and of death, gave meaning and explanation to the environment
he lived in and at the same time he assured himself that gods were looking after him.
First the sun, clouds, lightning and so on were gods because he didn't understand the natural phenomenon.
Then the more he understood his environment the more the gods retreated and now God can't be found anywhere.'

If you can't define what god is, then I can safely ignore what you have to say about god and your opinion of what god is (or is not), says (or not says) or does (or does not do). Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating that god is a meaningless concept.

I was afraid it would end like this Tank, I hope you did read the rest of my post.

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 04:20:22 PM

I was afraid it would end like this Tank, I hope you did read the rest of my post.

I did, in the vain hope there would be something significant and wortwhile, but unfortunatly I didn't find anything  :-\

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 04:46:36 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 04:20:22 PM

I was afraid it would end like this Tank, I hope you did read the rest of my post.

I did, in the vain hope there would be something significant and wortwhile, but unfortunatly I didn't find anything  :-\

If you are genuinely interested, why not read the book I recommended?

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 04:59:25 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 04:46:36 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 04:20:22 PM

I was afraid it would end like this Tank, I hope you did read the rest of my post.

I did, in the vain hope there would be something significant and wortwhile, but unfortunatly I didn't find anything  :-\

If you are genuinely interested, why not read the book I recommended?

Because it is about institutinalised superstitions (religions) and mutual group delusion, not god. I can find superstition whenever I want, Islam is just a superstition, no better than any other, and no more correct than any other. No religious person I have read or talked to has ever got past the believe what I say or believe what this other person I believe, believes. No testable facts, no evidence beyond speculation and wishful thinking. That is simply not good enough anymore.

I would not buy a car from somebody who could not show me the car. I won't 'buy' a god until somebody can show me the god. And however honest and earnest and faithful you, or any other person, may be makes no difference to me I'm afraid.

QuoteIf you are genuinely interested then you should start by reading 'The transcedent unity of religions' by Frithjof Schuon.

You see, we already know what they've got in common: a deluded belief in a supernatural being.  An entire book would be of no interest to us when we despise the central premise.

@isok, Your beliefs are starting to sound very Taoist of late (slightly misconstrued of the Taoist beliefs) compared to your older posts I don't mean this in any negative way whatsoever btw.

You should check out this forum as you are obviously quite interested in the subject area (as am I).
http://www.centertao.org/forum/ (http://www.centertao.org/forum/)

Sorry folk for the off topic nature of the post.

xSilverPhinx  introduced me to the term Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)

Quote from: Stevil on August 18, 2011, 08:17:46 PM
xSilverPhinx  introduced me to the term Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)

Would this mean that if one takes ISoK's statement "as I said earlier you can't define God", that would make ISoK an ignostic?

ISoK I doubt we will ever see eye-to-eye about theism, but that does not mean I don't appretate your participation on this forum.

Quote from: Tank on August 18, 2011, 02:50:58 PM
If you can't define what god is, then I can safely ignore what you have to say about god and your opinion of what god is (or is not), says (or not says) or does (or does not do). Thank you for so succinctly demonstrating that god is a meaningless concept.

Spot on Tank, if one can't describe one's god, then that god seems totally meaningless and pointless to me. iSok, it seems to me that all you're doing is quoting some Taoist and Sufi philosophy that is very similar to things written in Hindu philosophy/mysticism and Hellenistic philosophy/mysticism, both of which influenced Sufism. Celsus was a second century pagan philosopher and his description of god is uncannily similar to yours;

'This God of the philosophers is himself the underivable, the unnameable; he cannot be reached by reason. Such attributes as we may postulate of him are not the attributes of human nature. He cannot be comprehended in terms of attributes or human experience.'

I like Celsus a lot (his writings tore Christianity apart), but just because some mystics or philosophers say their god is beyond comprehension and description and anything we mere humans can sense or describe doesn't make it remotely true. It's just words written by people in a prescientific age who had only a small fraction of the knowledge and understanding of the universe that we now possess.

Quote from: Tank on August 17, 2011, 07:30:37 AM
The God Hypothesis. What is it?

Most people who self identify as atheists state that they do so because they have never been shown sufficient and/or convincing evidence to support the proposition that a god or gods exist.

So, from the ground up as it were, what is the god hypothesis and what evidence is there to support the hypothesis?

If the hypotheses is made for sake of argument, personal experience/testimony...which is insufficient evidence.
If it is conditional (or established by conditioning) and made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, there is no sufficient evidence to support the hypotheses.

Quote from: Gawen on August 20, 2011, 08:51:32 AM

Quote from: Tank on August 17, 2011, 07:30:37 AM
The God Hypothesis. What is it?

Most people who self identify as atheists state that they do so because they have never been shown sufficient and/or convincing evidence to support the proposition that a god or gods exist.

So, from the ground up as it were, what is the god hypothesis and what evidence is there to support the hypothesis?

If the hypotheses is made for sake of argument, personal experience/testimony...which is insufficient evidence.
If it is conditional (or established by conditioning) and made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, there is no sufficient evidence to support the hypotheses.

One can't state there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis until one has stated the hypothesis. We don't yet have a hypothesis as far as I can see.

Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 06:56:44 AM

Quote from: Stevil on August 18, 2011, 08:17:46 PM
xSilverPhinx  introduced me to the term Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)

Would this mean that if one takes ISoK's statement "as I said earlier you can't define God", that would make ISoK an ignostic?

No.
ISok believes that there is a god, although he admits to not knowing much about this god. He becomes close to being an agnostic theist.

An Ignostic would be a subset of Weak Atheist, but I feel that the majority of Weak Atheists would be Ignostic.
I am Ignostic, with regards to the question "do you believe in god?", I am unclear what is meant by the term god, I have never seen a clear description of this term in-so-far-as being able to make a decision on whether god creatures can or do exist.

A lot of theists refer to the personality described in their scripture, and simply say "He is God", most of them ascribe to the one god rule and hence don't need to delve further into the definition of a god.

I am not qualified to speak for iSok, but my personal assessment of him is thus:
iSok is a Muslim believing that the qu'ran accurately describes the one god's personality. Although he has asserted

Quote from: iSok on August 18, 2011, 02:58:36 AM
The only thing I can say for sure about God is that God is the Source of All and the Destination of All.

This implies that he does not necessarily trust much of the knowledge which is derived from the qu'ran. Possibly because it requires interpretation, or maybe that it has been translated, or because the words used can have many meanings and hence it is hard to determine with clarity what is being said.
The asserted statement that God is the Source of All, might possibly come from the god of the gaps used in the Cosmological argument. Don't know where everything came from, therefore it was god.
His stance that god is unknowable and hence he does not ascribe to a literal understanding of the qu'ran nor a defined position of a Church or Muslim organization, probably means that he has arrived at a god that fits his own personal morality, a mirror god of himself as is being discussed in another thread on this forum.

Tank, I think that ignosticism has more to do the meaningfulness of sentences and words. Since the word 'god' by itself is meaningless to me, if someone were to ask me if I believed in god the first thing that I would do is ask that person to define their god. I think that out of their descriptions of gods, what looks like shifting the goalpost is actually an elaborate net of what god means to them with existential, psychological, explanatory (god of the gaps) connotations. It's the path of least psychological resistance I think, though they're quite capable of holding incompatible notions when those three areas merge.  

I've noticed that in some cases people's conceptions of  their gods comes close to how I see the world (in the more deistic sense or the parts that theism have in common with deism). If people describe their god as the order in the universe then I would say that I believe in that though I wouldn't call it god. Their definitions or descriptions always differ from mine in significant ways: they say that their god is responsible for the order in the universe whereas I say that something that isn't conscious in the first place couldn't be actively responsible for creating a universe. My god lacks that 'mind quality' that theists and deists project onto the universe.  

Yeah...so basically to sum it all up since god can never be proven and the god concept put forth by people is purely subjective with no verifiable and demonstrable evidence in the world, I'll (ignostic) believe in whatever is meaningful to me.

I don't know how an ignostic theist (if those two are compatible) would think though, since the god concept is in some sense meaningful to them, otherwise they wouldn't be theists...

Thanks Stevil & xsilverpheonix, input appretiated.

QuoteOne can't state there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis until one has stated the hypothesis. We don't yet have a hypothesis as far as I can see.

A hypothesis is an assumption...as I understand it. If I say Kansas City was the birth place for the ancient indigenous Americans, I've made an hypothesis. Now I have to show evidence to support it.

On the lack of evidence side - the assumption side -  BEFORE hypothesis is speculation, surmise, guess, supposition and things like that.
I wonder if there is a god.
I surmise there might be a god.
I guess there might be/could be a god.

Change those to: There is a God...and one has made an hypothesis....an assumption. From speculation to assertion. But what is the evidence to back that up? The only evidence, which is not good evidence at all is personal religious experience.

Add in that evidence to support the hypotheses "There is a god" and it knocks out the speculation, guess, wonder and might be's to something regarded as true and turns it into credence, doctrine, dogma, opinion, precept, principle, theorem and "because I say so" etc, etc.

This is how I understand the word "hypothesis". If I have it all wrong, I sure would appreciate a lesson.

't

Quote from: Gawen on August 21, 2011, 12:20:44 PM

QuoteOne can't state there is insufficient evidence to support a hypothesis until one has stated the hypothesis. We don't yet have a hypothesis as far as I can see.

A hypothesis is an assumption...as I understand it. If I say Kansas City was the birth place for the ancient indigenous Americans, I've made an hypothesis. Now I have to show evidence to support it.

On the lack of evidence side - the assumption side -  BEFORE hypothesis is speculation, surmise, guess, supposition and things like that.
I wonder if there is a god.
I surmise there might be a god.
I guess there might be/could be a god.

Change those to: There is a God...and one has made an hypothesis....an assumption. From speculation to assertion. But what is the evidence to back that up? The only evidence, which is not good evidence at all is personal religious experience.

Add in that evidence to support the hypotheses "There is a god" and it knocks out the speculation, guess, wonder and might be's to something regarded as true and turns it into credence, doctrine, dogma, opinion, precept, principle, theorem and "because I say so" etc, etc.

This is how I understand the word "hypothesis". If I have it all wrong, I sure would appreciate a lesson.

I agree with all that, but I was looking for something more than speculation about an ill formed idea, e.g. god. Is far as I know (and I could well be wong) a hypothesis formally states an idea in a fashion that makes the idea a testable concept? So far I have not seen a formal statement of what god is, what god should look like, how god should behave, how one would objectivly identify a god's interaction with reality etc, etc. As far as I can tell we have not reached the point in the discussion where there is a valid and rigerous hypothetical description of god. Until we reach that point 'god' is nothing more that a fuzzy example of personal wishful thinking.

Does that make more sense?

Quote from: TankDoes that make more sense?

Yes.

QuoteI agree with all that, but I was looking for something more than speculation about an ill formed idea, e.g. god.

But there IS more than speculation. They call it "creed".

QuoteIs far as I know (and I could well be wrong) a hypothesis formally states an idea in a fashion that makes the idea a testable concept?

True, but whether or not the hypothesis is backed up by testable evidence or not, it's still an hypothesis, I would think.

QuoteSo far I have not seen a formal statement of what god is, what god should look like, how god should behave, how one would objectivly identify a god's interaction with reality etc, etc. As far as I can tell we have not reached the point in the discussion where there is a valid and rigerous hypothetical description of god. Until we reach that point 'god' is nothing more that a fuzzy example of personal wishful thinking.

Well, I agree with you. And the problem here is that (speaking Christianese only) Christians have quite a long, if varied hypothesis on their God and its description and attributes and none of it testable.

I have long maintained the word "god" is meaningless without the actual "god" in front of me to test it. The hypothesis that there is a god and it exists with certain descriptions and attributes is equally meaningless without some sort of verification...and that renders the "God Hypothesis" moot. It can still be an hypothesis, an assertion, or assumption, right or wrong or undecided...but it is meaningless at this point.

Quote from: Gawen on August 21, 2011, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: TankIs far as I know (and I could well be wrong) a hypothesis formally states an idea in a fashion that makes the idea a testable concept?

True, but whether or not the hypothesis is backed up by testable evidence or not, it's still an hypothesis, I would think.

If a hypothesis can be backed up with sufficient evidence it becomes a theory (in the scientific context). So Darwin hypothasised about the existance of evolution and then went out and found sufficient evidence to turn it into a workable theory.

Quote from: Gawen

Quote from: TankSo far I have not seen a formal statement of what god is, what god should look like, how god should behave, how one would objectivly identify a god's interaction with reality etc, etc. As far as I can tell we have not reached the point in the discussion where there is a valid and rigerous hypothetical description of god. Until we reach that point 'god' is nothing more that a fuzzy example of personal wishful thinking.

Well, I agree with you. And the problem here is that (speaking Christianese only) Christians have quite a long, if varied hypothesis on their God and its description and attributes and none of it testable.

I have long maintained the word "god" is meaningless without the actual "god" in front of me to test it. The hypothesis that there is a god and it exists with certain descriptions and attributes is equally meaningless without some sort of verification...and that renders the "God Hypothesis" moot. It can still be an hypothesis, an assertion, or assumption, right or wrong or undecided...but it is meaningless at this point.

Assertions don't need to be testable but a hypothosis has to be testable and rigorously stated to make it a hypothesis.

So to go from the 'god assertion', which is where we appear to be at the moment, to a 'god hypothesis', we need  rigorous statement(s) that define what god is and does. Until then I think we only have 'god assertions' in an almost infinite variety, i.e. one for every believer; as there is not a singular description of god to which all believers can adhere.

Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 02:46:47 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 21, 2011, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: TankIs far as I know (and I could well be wrong) a hypothesis formally states an idea in a fashion that makes the idea a testable concept?

True, but whether or not the hypothesis is backed up by testable evidence or not, it's still an hypothesis, I would think.

If a hypothesis can be backed up with sufficient evidence it becomes a theory (in the scientific context). So Darwin hypothasised about the existance of evolution and then went out and found sufficient evidence to turn it into a workable theory.

Yes, that is true. Sometimes Tank, I can't believe what a dumb shit I can be....*sigh*

QuoteSo to go from the 'god assertion', which is where we appear to be at the moment, to a 'god hypothesis', we need  rigorous statement(s) that define what god is and does. Until then I think we only have 'god assertions' in an almost infinite variety, i.e. one for every believer; as there is not a singular description of god to which all believers can adhere.

And that's why when we debate Christians of various flavours, we have to stand by their untestable and extremely weak assertions and definitions.

Quote from: Gawen on August 22, 2011, 02:10:49 AM

Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 02:46:47 PM

Quote from: Gawen on August 21, 2011, 02:20:48 PM

Quote from: TankIs far as I know (and I could well be wrong) a hypothesis formally states an idea in a fashion that makes the idea a testable concept?

True, but whether or not the hypothesis is backed up by testable evidence or not, it's still an hypothesis, I would think.

If a hypothesis can be backed up with sufficient evidence it becomes a theory (in the scientific context). So Darwin hypothesised about the existence of evolution and then went out and found sufficient evidence to turn it into a workable theory.

Yes, that is true. Sometimes Tank, I can't believe what a dumb shit I can be....*sigh*

If you're dumb that makes me an amoeba!

Quote from: Gawen on August 22, 2011, 02:10:49 AM

QuoteSo to go from the 'god assertion', which is where we appear to be at the moment, to a 'god hypothesis', we need  rigorous statement(s) that define what god is and does. Until then I think we only have 'god assertions' in an almost infinite variety, i.e. one for every believer; as there is not a singular description of god to which all believers can adhere.

And that's why when we debate Christians of various flavours, we have to stand by their untestable and extremely weak assertions and definitions.

That would appear to be the case. Given the fractured nature of the sects in the Christian faith it really does appear that they don't actually know what god is. And then you get the wonderful bit of 'double think' "God can't be defined, if you can define God that isn't God." or words to that effect. It's a wonderful example of word play to deflect a difficult question.

It certainly doesn't help when many of their assertions are contradictory. 

Quote from: Gawen on August 22, 2011, 12:26:22 PM
It certainly doesn't help when many of their assertions are contradictory. 

Well it doesn't help them, but it does help us!  ;D

The only thing a Muslim can say about God is what God says about Himself.
Even then the language gives boundaries and limits.

So, according to the Qur'an.

(24:35) God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. His Light may be likened to a niche wherein is a lamp, and the lamp is in the crystal which shines in star-like brilliance.
It is lit from (the oil) of a blessed olive tree. that is neither eastern nor western. Its oil well nigh glows forth (of itself) though no fire touched it: Light upon Light.
God guides to His Light whom He wills. God sets forth parables to make people understand. God knows everything.

The olive not being from the east or the west (since north and south have limits) is that He is beyond definition.
How hard that might be to swallow for the staunch atheist.

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
The only thing a Muslim can say about God is what God says about Himself.
Even then the language gives boundaries and limits.

So, according to the Qur'an.

(24:35) God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. His Light may be likened to a niche wherein is a lamp, and the lamp is in the crystal which shines in star-like brilliance.
It is lit from (the oil) of a blessed olive tree. that is neither eastern nor western. Its oil well nigh glows forth (of itself) though no fire touched it: Light upon Light.
God guides to His Light whom He wills. God sets forth parables to make people understand. God knows everything.

The olive not being from the east or the west (since north and south have limits) is that He is beyond definition.
How hard that might be to swallow for the staunch atheist.

ISoK, this does not constitute a hypothesis as it makes no measurable statements and thus can not be falsified. So we still only have a god assertion, which really should be ignored by everybody, be they atheist or theist.

Quote from: Tank on August 22, 2011, 03:49:14 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 03:39:14 PM
The only thing a Muslim can say about God is what God says about Himself.
Even then the language gives boundaries and limits.

So, according to the Qur'an.

(24:35) God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. His Light may be likened to a niche wherein is a lamp, and the lamp is in the crystal which shines in star-like brilliance.
It is lit from (the oil) of a blessed olive tree. that is neither eastern nor western. Its oil well nigh glows forth (of itself) though no fire touched it: Light upon Light.
God guides to His Light whom He wills. God sets forth parables to make people understand. God knows everything.

The olive not being from the east or the west (since north and south have limits) is that He is beyond definition.
How hard that might be to swallow for the staunch atheist.

ISoK, this does not constitute a hypothesis as it makes no measurable statements and thus can not be falsified. So we still only have a god assertion, which really should be ignored by everybody, be they atheist or theist.

My reponse was meant for Stevil as he apparently knew what I thought....

Tank, not too be annoying but I'll continue this with you.
So you want to set up a hypothesis of God and with an experiment you want to either accept God as a theory (for now) or reject it?

What if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only work with limits.

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PMWhat if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only works with limits.

The problem is determining if a god even exists: if there is no way to determine if a god exists, then what is the point of asserting that the god exists?

If the god cannot perform miracles that affect reality, then the god is powerless and it's meaningless to assert it. However if the god can perform reality affecting miracles, then we can detect the effects scientifically. The middle ground is that the god only performs miracles when it's not being watched... which could be said about anything.

Quote from: Davin on August 22, 2011, 05:06:23 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PMWhat if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only works with limits.

The problem is determining if a god even exists: if there is no way to determine if a god exists, then what is the point of asserting that the god exists?

If the god cannot perform miracles that affect reality, then the god is powerless and it's meaningless to assert it. However if the god can perform reality affecting miracles, then we can detect the effects scientifically. The middle ground is that the god only performs miracles when it's not being watched... which could be said about anything.

1. The scientific method does not detect God.
2. God doesn't exist.


right?

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 05:16:02 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 22, 2011, 05:06:23 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PMWhat if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only works with limits.

The problem is determining if a god even exists: if there is no way to determine if a god exists, then what is the point of asserting that the god exists?

If the god cannot perform miracles that affect reality, then the god is powerless and it's meaningless to assert it. However if the god can perform reality affecting miracles, then we can detect the effects scientifically. The middle ground is that the god only performs miracles when it's not being watched... which could be said about anything.

1. The scientific method does not detect God.
2. God doesn't exist.


right?

Wrong:

1. We have no reliable means to determine the existence of a god thing.
2. Therefore there is no reason to assert there is a god thing.

That is more accurate. Also, you'll find this kind of reasoning is very effective in most situations when someone is asserting things without evidence. Otherwise why don't believe in the subatomic robot creators of everything that created everything in the universe (including light in transit and all our memories of the past), five days ago?

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
My reponse was meant for Stevil as he apparently knew what I thought....

What if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only work with limits.

Sorry iSok, I know it can be annoying when a person tries to speak for you. I was trying to assess your statement and position, knowing you would provide clarity.
Unfortunately your clarity sounds more like a riddle, "light"... WTF

If your god interacts with reality, in specific if it responds to an action of humans then we can test this response.
If you believe in answered prayer, then scientifically (statistically) it can be shown that prayer is never answered (not beyond statistical probability of normal events). Prayer beyond self meditation and self reflective benefits is a complete waste of time. People that dedicate their lifes to church e.g. nuns and spend a significant amount of time in prayer are wasting a significant proportion of their valuable lives.

 

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PM

Quote from: Tank
ISoK, this does not constitute a hypothesis as it makes no measurable statements and thus can not be falsified. So we still only have a god assertion, which really should be ignored by everybody, be they atheist or theist.

Tank, not too be annoying but I'll continue this with you.
So you want to set up a hypothesis of God and with an experiment you want to either accept God as a theory (for now) or reject it?

What if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only work with limits.

No problem ISoK. I want you to explain your god hypothesis. I will determin my reaction to what you write based on what you write. Please don't try and second guess what I want as I have told you what I want. If you want to I would like you to try to explain what you think god is, why you think your understanding is correct and what would make you change your understanding.

I will go one step further than Tank, Isok. I don't want you to explain what you THINK your god is, I want to know what you know. I would like to know what your god is and what evidence you have to explain it. Any evidence at all will do.

Your hypothesis would be such:
1) My god exists.
2) Here is my evidence.

We will then weigh the evidence to see if your hypothesis has merit.

However, if this constitutes your evidence:

Quote(24:35) God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. His Light may be likened to a niche wherein is a lamp, and the lamp is in the crystal which shines in star-like brilliance.
It is lit from (the oil) of a blessed olive tree. that is neither eastern nor western. Its oil well nigh glows forth (of itself) though no fire touched it: Light upon Light.
God guides to His Light whom He wills. God sets forth parables to make people understand. God knows everything.

The olive not being from the east or the west (since north and south have limits) is that He is beyond definition.
How hard that might be to swallow for the staunch atheist.

Well.........

Quote from: iSok on August 22, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
What if God is a Being with no limits? Then the scientific method fails in case God exists, because the scientific method can only work with limits.

In religious document terms this would seem unlikely as all statements about god and his powers would all be feasible within the limits of current scientific understanding.

I agree with Gawen on what a hypothesis is. If you can find the time to write it I would certainly read it, as their are not many believers who have gathered their thoughts concisely enough to write a god hypothesis and would be very interesting to read.

Tank & Gawen

I edited an old response I posted a while ago on this forum and I add a few new lines.
Tell me whether this is the right direction.

Hypothesis:

In Islam God has 99 sacred names in order for human beings to understand Him (The Most Merciful, The Avenger, The Loving, The Light and so on..).
God rules and sustains the universe with the aspects of Tanzih and Tasbih. Tanzih is declaring incomparability of God with other creatures.
Tasbih is affirming similarity with other creatures.

All names of God contain Tasbih and Tanzih, but some names are overruled with Tanzih and others are overruled with Tasbih. But this can be better explained in a graphic way

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2s1awiu.jpg&hash=2c71912ff50f2726b972df20ff0c8f2700ad46e8)
Tanzih: All worlds have the same center, but the center (God) has no dimension.
Creatures are distant from God because of God's incomparability.
(42:11 - Naught in the universe is like Him).


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F333wv83.jpg&hash=5c0b4d04c5eb8ee08f8a69384f4d1bc85847b54c)
Tasbih: It symbolizes God's concern over other creatures in terms of kindness, mercy, compassion, and love.
Every creature is connected to the Center, it gains it's reality from the Center.


(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi56.tinypic.com%2F99dthz.jpg&hash=89d9b9a56e2de045dc9211de787c9dd81774a90d)
Tasbih & Tanzih together is Tawhid, declaring the Oneness of God. It's how God governs, sustains
and controls the universe in an organized way by preventing chaos.

The worst sin according to Islam is shirk, setting up rivals with God, this is destroying Tawhid and ultimately destroying the reality of others, because it causes chaos. You set up other centers within reality which causes the unreal to lose its connection to the Real. This doesn't have to be just idols you worship. I'll quote two Hadith (sayings of the Prophet).

The Prophet came out to us from his house while we were discussing the AntiChrist.
He said, 'Shall I tell you about something that is more frightening to me than the AntiChrist?'
The people replied that he should.
He said, 'Hidden Shirk, in other words, that a man should perform the salat (prayer)
and do it beautifully for the sake of someone who is watching.'


'The most frightening thing that I fear for my Community is associating others with God.
I do not mean to say that they will worship the sun, or the moon, or idols.
I mean that they will perform works for other than God with a hidden desire.

So the most important saying of a Muslim is 'La iLaha il Allah' = 'There is no god but God'.
It rejects all other gods, idols, desires and egocentric thoughts that human beings have come up with and it testifies of the Ultimate Reality.
It's usually said with the last breath before death.


The down side is that they can make the wrong choice, but the good side is that the choice makes us more aware of reality.
Other creatures do not have this awareness.

If we take a look at the universe, everything has divine attributes of God, even minerals.
At the bottom there are minerals then there is microscopic life. They have certain divine attributes.
Next there are plants; they are for example 'Grateful' and 'Generous', when you give them enough water they'll give you fruit.
Then there are animals, for example the cheetah and the hyena.
If you see the Cheetah, it will kill it's prey with 'Mercy', by making it's prey is dead before starting to eat. (dominated by Tasbih)
The hyena just doesn't care, it acts more notorious. (Tanzih).
You could give an biological explanation, like the difference in jaws of both animals which gives the cheeta an advantage by
blocking the pipe that is used for breathing. But we do perceive the act in a certain way.

At the final stage there is the human being.

The human being has all the divine attributes.
The whole cosmos with all it's divine attributes has been placed within the human being, the human being is the micro cosmos.
Some of us are dominated by Tanzih, others are dominated by Tasbih.
The foremost are those who have balanced this and put everything in the right place, they are the prophets and the close friends of God.
We end up with people like Pol Plot (a mass murderer) and Bhuddah.
It's that Tanzih and Tasbih create this immense spectrum of human developing which cannot be found
among any other creatures since we have all the attributes that can be found in the Cosmos.
There's a cosmos (microcosmos) in each and every one of us that one has to dominate by Tasbih and preferably balance.

(2:143 - Thus, have We made of you an Ummat (community) justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves.)

So according to the Islamic perspective acknowledging God is acknowledging oneself. A famous proverb says: 'He who knows himself knows his Creator.'
The Christians and the Jews say that Adam was made in God's image.
The Hindu's say that man's first parents were Mahadev and Parwati and they were made in the image of God.
This doesn't mean that God is an old man with a beard like we tend to see him in popular culture.
It means that the human being has all the attributes of God, like explained above.

The human being is the vicegerent of God according to Islam, he has to perfect the balance and put things in the right place within oneself.
A verse in the Qur'an explains that only the human being is able to carry this Trust of God.

(33:72 - We offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it and were afraid of doing so; but man carried it. Surely he is wrong-doing, ignorant.)

The Heavens refused because they are the luminous, they are close to God and could not bear the Tanzih (distance of God) of that trust. The Earth refused because it could not bear the Tasbih (Nearness to God), the Earth is dominated by Tanzih. The mountains refused because they could not tolerate the extremes of either Tanzih or Tasbih. But the human being has accepted it.

(2:30 - Just recall the time when your Lord said to the angels, "I am going to appoint a vicegerent on the Earth." They humbly enquired, "Are you going to appoint such a one as will cause disorder and shed blood on the Earth? We are already engaged in hymning Your praise, and hallowing Your name".
(2:31 - God replied, "I know what you do not know." After this He taught Adam the names of all things. Then He set these before the angels and asked, "Tell Me the names of these things, if you are right (in thinking that the appointment of a vicegerent will cause disorder).

The names in this verse is generally seen as all the attributes of God.

From an Islamic perspective, the reason that animals like the tiger are going extinct is because their attributes within the human being is disappearing. We are destroying the Trust. Destroying that is denying who we are and makes us heedless of our balance. Our inward reality is always manifesting in the outward reality. It's ultimately a violation of our vicegerency. The ecological crisis in the modern times is a symptom for the Muslim instead of a sickness, the sickness lies in the heart of man.


Evidence:


Well I can be short about this, it's religious pluralism.
Most religions are teaching the same.
To give an example, the resemblance of the Mayah creation Myth looks a lot like the Abrahamic, not only that but just about
every  symbol or story that is used in one religion to make people understand is used in another.

Ironically, an article written by the Pakistani Atheists & Agnostics summs up the evidence for me.
Here's a part of the article.


One of the most interesting stories for me has been the great flood, represented in almost all ancient texts; from the story of Ziusudra hero of the Sumerian flood epic to Noah's Ark a biblical and Quranic account. The same myth can be found in Puranas, which is a part of the ancient Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religious text. In the great deluge in Hindu mythology, Manu saved mankind from the great flood sent by an avatar of Vishnu, Matsya. The commonalities in all these stories include a person who is aware of the flood in advance, an angry deity, a vulnerable population of animal and humankind and the hero who saves all.

My second favorite is the miraculous birth myth.  Like the story of Krishna, in which Vishnu descends into Devaki's womb and is born as her son; Vasudeva (Krishna). Similar is the story of Perseus, son of Danaë who was locked away so she does not have children, however Zeus turned into a shower of gold and impregnated her. The story of Danaë has actually a lot more to share with the story of Maryam or Mary in the Quran. It is mentioned in Surah Maryam 19:16 – 19:22 that while she was fasting in seclusion in a place facing east, she was approached by Gabriel who gave her the tidings of a son and she conceived.

Next is the story of Moses, who was found in a basket floating in the Nile, and the Sumerian King Sargon of Akkad, who was found in a basket floating in the Euphrates. Despite that many claim the myth was written after Moses's birth, the similarity in religious stories at least clarifies one thing, and that is, there is no such thing as an only true religion. All have branched out one from another, since almost all religious books tell the same stories and share the same myths with a bit of variation depending on geography, culture and language, dependent on human understanding.
http://www.e-paa.org/content/myth-divine-books


As I explained earlier in another topic and once again here, the similarity of religions or the themes
that are used within religion are mostly the same, this proves that there is more than materialism. Something beyond the scientific method.
If it's not God, then it's some sort of collective unconsciousness. I have a few reasons to assume that it is God, but I will go into detail later.

Quote from: Stevil on August 22, 2011, 07:34:58 PM
Sorry iSok, I know it can be annoying when a person tries to speak for you. I was trying to assess your statement and position, knowing you would provide clarity.
Unfortunately your clarity sounds more like a riddle, "light"... WTF

If your god interacts with reality, in specific if it responds to an action of humans then we can test this response.
If you believe in answered prayer, then scientifically (statistically) it can be shown that prayer is never answered (not beyond statistical probability of normal events). Prayer beyond self meditation and self reflective benefits is a complete waste of time. People that dedicate their lifes to church e.g. nuns and spend a significant amount of time in prayer are wasting a significant proportion of their valuable lives.

Stevil, would you agree that for every human being the most important aspect in life is happiness,; whether he is black or white, atheist or theist, male or female, old or young?

I have been reading this thread, and it's been super interesting.
Sadly, I sill haven't seen Isok provide any actual evidence other than quotes.
I might as well carve jesus on  some toast and sell em on ebay for some profit, which is all religion has been proven;  a great scam.

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:37:24 AM
Stevil, would you agree that for every human being the most important aspect in life is happiness,; whether he is black or white, atheist or theist, male or female, old or young?

Not meaning to be disagreeable, but I don't consider the emotional state of happiness to be the most important aspect of life.

Life is so complex I don't think it can be summed up into a desire for a single emotional state.
If happiness is your guide then you may be a perfect candidate for addiction. Addiction to food, to drugs and alcohol, to sex, to gambling. This behavior could lead to a somewhat empty and shallow existence.

Sometimes I act out of duty or responsibility, sometimes I do things for others, sometimes I do things because I want to be healthy, sometimes because if I don't, there is no-one else who will (e.g. throw out the garbage, mow the lawn, wash the car).

Some of the happiest people that I have seen have been mentally impaired, they seem to be outwardly very happy and easily excited. I don't envy them and their happiness though.

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:37:24 AM
Tank & Gawen

I edited an old response I posted a while ago on this forum and I add a few new lines.
Tell me whether this is the right direction.

Hypothesis:

In Islam God has 99 sacred names in order for human beings to understand Him (The Most Merciful, The Avenger, The Loving, The Light and so on..).
God rules and sustains the universe with the aspects of Tanzih and Tasbih. Tanzih is declaring incomparability of God with other creatures.
Tasbih is affirming similarity with other creatures.

{snip to be dealt with later}

Would I be correct in understanding that you are saying that the 99 names of god are descriptions of the characteristics of the expected behaviours of god?

QuoteAs I explained earlier in another topic and once again here, the similarity of religions or the themes that are used within religion are mostly the same, this proves that there is more than materialism. Something beyond the scientific method.
If it's not God, then it's some sort of collective unconsciousness. I have a few reasons to assume that it is God, but I will go into detail later.

Your evidence covers at least two aspects.
1) Miracles
2) Similarity (loose religious pluralism)

Too much for me to go into right now, but will go over them after work tonight. Hopefully I'll not have to because in the next 12 hours, other will have posted...*chucklin*

Quote from: Tank on August 23, 2011, 09:01:11 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:37:24 AM
Tank & Gawen

I edited an old response I posted a while ago on this forum and I add a few new lines.
Tell me whether this is the right direction.

Hypothesis:

In Islam God has 99 sacred names in order for human beings to understand Him (The Most Merciful, The Avenger, The Loving, The Light and so on..).
God rules and sustains the universe with the aspects of Tanzih and Tasbih. Tanzih is declaring incomparability of God with other creatures.
Tasbih is affirming similarity with other creatures.

{snip to be dealt with later}

Would I be correct in understanding that you are saying that the 99 names of god are descriptions of the characteristics of the expected behaviours of god?

That is a bit of oversimplification, the 99 names gives us an understanding in what way in every creature is dealt with.
The 99 names are also a part of us and they are also divided in the rest of the universe.

God - Has 99 names
Human - Has all 99 names but dimmed (He's the vicegerent)
Cosmos - 99 names scattered among the rest of creation.

Why do humans need 99 names instead of like... two?

Human and homosapien. It's confusing.

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:37:24 AM

Evidence:

Well I can be short about this, it's religious pluralism.
Most religions are teaching the same.
To give an example, the resemblance of the Mayah creation Myth looks a lot like the Abrahamic, not only that but just about
every  symbol or story that is used in one religion to make people understand is used in another.

Ironically, an article written by the Pakistani Atheists & Agnostics summs up the evidence for me.
Here's a part of the article.

One of the most interesting stories for me has been the great flood, represented in almost all ancient texts; from the story of Ziusudra hero of the Sumerian flood epic to Noah's Ark a biblical and Quranic account. The same myth can be found in Puranas, which is a part of the ancient Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religious text. In the great deluge in Hindu mythology, Manu saved mankind from the great flood sent by an avatar of Vishnu, Matsya. The commonalities in all these stories include a person who is aware of the flood in advance, an angry deity, a vulnerable population of animal and humankind and the hero who saves all.

My second favorite is the miraculous birth myth.  Like the story of Krishna, in which Vishnu descends into Devaki's womb and is born as her son; Vasudeva (Krishna). Similar is the story of Perseus, son of Danaë who was locked away so she does not have children, however Zeus turned into a shower of gold and impregnated her. The story of Danaë has actually a lot more to share with the story of Maryam or Mary in the Quran. It is mentioned in Surah Maryam 19:16 – 19:22 that while she was fasting in seclusion in a place facing east, she was approached by Gabriel who gave her the tidings of a son and she conceived.

Next is the story of Moses, who was found in a basket floating in the Nile, and the Sumerian King Sargon of Akkad, who was found in a basket floating in the Euphrates. Despite that many claim the myth was written after Moses's birth, the similarity in religious stories at least clarifies one thing, and that is, there is no such thing as an only true religion. All have branched out one from another, since almost all religious books tell the same stories and share the same myths with a bit of variation depending on geography, culture and language, dependent on human understanding.
http://www.e-paa.org/content/myth-divine-books


As I explained earlier in another topic and once again here, the similarity of religions or the themes
that are used within religion are mostly the same, this proves that there is more than materialism. Something beyond the scientific method.
If it's not God, then it's some sort of collective unconsciousness. I have a few reasons to assume that it is God, but I will go into detail later.

iSok, you're not providing any evidence 'beyond the scientific method' here. Firstly the examples you give for religious pluralism aren't religious teachings, they're mythology. The fact that the same standard mythological themes are found in many cultures / religions isn't evidence for any god or collective unconsciousness. It can be explained very easily (and relatively scientifically);

Religious ideas and mythological metaphors were shared between many societies and were often incorporated into newer religions from older religions / myths. Different cultures and religions influenced each other. Hence Moses' birth story was indeed based on that of Sargon of Akkad, the virgin birth story of Jesus was based on those of other sons of god who were also born of virgins such as Heracles and Perseus, and the 'Massacre of the Innocents' was written into the gospels so that Jesus' birth story mirrored that of Moses.

A lot of the earliest myths were originally written to explain the movement of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars in the heavens. Most ancient civilizations were based in the northern hemisphere, and they shared the same stars and night sky. Hence myths could often easily be imported from one civilization / religion to another.  The flood myth is the prime example of this, there are flood myths known from cultures that never experienced flooding. The reason for this is that the flood myth was allegorical for the movement of the stars in the heavens due to precession, societies that had never experienced flooding could still import an allegorical myth that was actually about about the stars in the night sky and not an actual flood.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 23, 2011, 04:18:15 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:37:24 AM

Evidence:

Well I can be short about this, it's religious pluralism.
Most religions are teaching the same.
To give an example, the resemblance of the Mayah creation Myth looks a lot like the Abrahamic, not only that but just about
every  symbol or story that is used in one religion to make people understand is used in another.

Ironically, an article written by the Pakistani Atheists & Agnostics summs up the evidence for me.
Here's a part of the article.

One of the most interesting stories for me has been the great flood, represented in almost all ancient texts; from the story of Ziusudra hero of the Sumerian flood epic to Noah's Ark a biblical and Quranic account. The same myth can be found in Puranas, which is a part of the ancient Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religious text. In the great deluge in Hindu mythology, Manu saved mankind from the great flood sent by an avatar of Vishnu, Matsya. The commonalities in all these stories include a person who is aware of the flood in advance, an angry deity, a vulnerable population of animal and humankind and the hero who saves all.

My second favorite is the miraculous birth myth.  Like the story of Krishna, in which Vishnu descends into Devaki's womb and is born as her son; Vasudeva (Krishna). Similar is the story of Perseus, son of Danaë who was locked away so she does not have children, however Zeus turned into a shower of gold and impregnated her. The story of Danaë has actually a lot more to share with the story of Maryam or Mary in the Quran. It is mentioned in Surah Maryam 19:16 – 19:22 that while she was fasting in seclusion in a place facing east, she was approached by Gabriel who gave her the tidings of a son and she conceived.

Next is the story of Moses, who was found in a basket floating in the Nile, and the Sumerian King Sargon of Akkad, who was found in a basket floating in the Euphrates. Despite that many claim the myth was written after Moses's birth, the similarity in religious stories at least clarifies one thing, and that is, there is no such thing as an only true religion. All have branched out one from another, since almost all religious books tell the same stories and share the same myths with a bit of variation depending on geography, culture and language, dependent on human understanding.
http://www.e-paa.org/content/myth-divine-books


As I explained earlier in another topic and once again here, the similarity of religions or the themes
that are used within religion are mostly the same, this proves that there is more than materialism. Something beyond the scientific method.
If it's not God, then it's some sort of collective unconsciousness. I have a few reasons to assume that it is God, but I will go into detail later.

iSok, you're not providing any evidence 'beyond the scientific method' here. Firstly the examples you give for religious pluralism aren't religious teachings, they're mythology. The fact that the same standard mythological themes are found in many cultures / religions isn't evidence for any god or collective unconsciousness. It can be explained very easily (and relatively scientifically);

Religious ideas and mythological metaphors were shared between many societies and were often incorporated into newer religions from older religions / myths. Different cultures and religions influenced each other. Hence Moses' birth story was indeed based on that of Sargon of Akkad, the virgin birth story of Jesus was based on those of other sons of god who were also born of virgins such as Heracles and Perseus, and the 'Massacre of the Innocents' was written into the gospels so that Jesus' birth story mirrored that of Moses.

A lot of the earliest myths were originally written to explain the movement of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars in the heavens. Most ancient civilizations were based in the northern hemisphere, and they shared the same stars and night sky. Hence myths could often easily be imported from one civilization / religion to another.  The flood myth is the prime example of this, there are flood myths known from cultures that never experienced flooding. The reason for this is that the flood myth was allegorical for the movement of the stars in the heavens due to precession, societies that had never experienced flooding could still import an allegorical myth that was actually about about the stars in the night sky and not an actual flood.

This makes more faith to believe in than faith in God...

Also you're talking of influences, they were all separated demographically, geographically.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 23, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
iSok, you're not providing any evidence 'beyond the scientific method' here.

The evidence required of a hypothesis isn't required to be as strict as evidence for a theory. A hypothesis is a starting point that uses limited or loose evidence to define a direction for further examination and research, which would then latter develop into solid forms of evidence if that hypothesis was correct.

Writing explainations for why the stars move is an interesting way to show how religions are myths.

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:42:46 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 23, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
A lot of the earliest myths were originally written to explain the movement of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars in the heavens. Most ancient civilizations were based in the northern hemisphere, and they shared the same stars and night sky. Hence myths could often easily be imported from one civilization / religion to another.  The flood myth is the prime example of this, there are flood myths known from cultures that never experienced flooding. The reason for this is that the flood myth was allegorical for the movement of the stars in the heavens due to precession, societies that had never experienced flooding could still import an allegorical myth that was actually about about the stars in the night sky and not an actual flood.

This makes more faith to believe in than faith in God...

Also you're talking of influences, they were all separated demographically, geographically.

iSok, rather than reading and blindly believing and quoting your Qur'an and other Islamic books, you might try reading some books on comparative mythology (such as the works of Mircea Eliade) that might help you understand where your idea of god and the myths of your religion derive from.

So do you believe that there was an actual historical flood? If not (after all there is no evidence for it) you could then ask the question could it possibly be allegorical for something else. Many ancient sources talk of the flood myth as being related to the myth of a conflagration (eg Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis and the final conflagration that Christians believe will accompany Jesus' second coming). From my reading of the sources, it seems to me both were allegorical myths for the movement of the stars over the Great Year. Here are few quotes from ancient Greek / Roman sources to back me up;

'There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water...[this] is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the earth...on the other hand the gods purge the earth with a deluge' – Plato

'There is a Great Year, whose winter is a great flood and whose summer is a world conflagration. In these alternating periods the world is now going up in flames, now turning to water.' – Censorinus

'After cycles of years and because of the fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession of the universe' - Celsus

Anyway, whether or not you agree or disagree with my (and Plato's!) interpretation of the flood myth, my point was that there are similarities in myths from different religions / societies because;

1- Religious ideas and mythological metaphors were shared between many societies and were often incorporated into newer religions from older religions / myths

2- A lot of the earliest myths were originally written to explain the movement of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars in the heavens. As people shared the same sky, myths could often easily be imported from one civilization / religion to another

The similarity of myths between cultures isn't  evidence for the existence of a god or a collective unconscious.

We can continue discussing the similarities within different religion till we drop dead.
At the end of the day it's how you take the interpretation. I have a certain mindset and I'm sorry to quote so many people.
But it takes time to write everything down, which I don't have.....

So once again, my apologies but Reza Aslan exactly puts it down the way I think about it.

One should become acquainted with the unmistakable patterns--call them modalities (Rudolph Otto), paradigmatic gestures (Mircea Eliade), spiritual dimensions (Ninian Smart), or archetypes (Carl Jung)--that recur in the myths and rituals of nearly all religious traditions and throughout all of recorded history. Even if one insists on reducing humanity's enduring religious impulse to causal definitions, dismissing the experience of transcendence as nothing more than an anthropological (e.g. Edward Tylor or Max Muller), sociological (think Robertson Smith or Emile Durkheim), or even psychological phenomenon (ala Sigmund Freud, who attempted to locate the religious impulse deep within the individual psyche, as though it were a mental disorder that could be cured through proper psychoanalysis), one should at the very least have a sense of what the term "God" means.

Of course, positing the existence of a transcendent reality that exists beyond our material experiences does not necessarily imply the existence of a Divine Personality, or God. (In some ways, the idea of God is merely the personal affirmation of the transcendent experience.) But what if did? What if one viewed the recurring patterns of religious phenomena that so many diverse cultures and civilizations--separated by immeasurable time and distance--seem to have shared as evidence of an active, engaging, transcendent presence (what Muslims call the Universal Spirit, Hindus call prana, Taoists call chi'i, Jews call ruah, and Christians call the Holy Spirit) that underlies creation, that, in fact, impels creation? Is such a possibility any more hypothetical than say, superstring theory or the notion of the multiverse? Then again, maybe the patterns of religious phenomenon signify nothing. Maybe they indicate little more than a common desire among all peoples to answer similar questions of "Ultimate Concern," to use the Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich's famous phrase. The point is that, like any researcher or critic, like any scientist, I'm open to possibilities.

I became interested in this when I read the Primordial Ocean by Professor Perry (Egyptologist), he was of the opinion
that the ancient egyptians had sailed around the world to spread their religion, even reaching Indonesia.

You might have read books by Eliade, but you should also give Schuon, Guenon, Smith and so on a try.
The journal of comparative religion is also a good source.

Quote from: iSok

One should become acquainted with the unmistakable patterns...that recur in the myths and rituals of nearly all religious traditions and throughout all of recorded history.

Unmistakeable patterns. Well, people find all sorts of patterns. It's the way they think about the patterns that makes a difference. Religious correlations of a flood in ancient civilisations without dates proves basically nothing, for example. There is no pattern here. It's not even a correlation, per say because all the flood stories do not parallel, compliment, support causal or reciprocate each other. 

Quote...one should at the very least have a sense of what the term "God" means.

For many people, it is as natural to believe in fairies and witches and evil eyes and God as it is to believe that fire is hot and snow is cold and two plus two equals four. But this is all irrelevant to whether there are fairies or witches or gods or fire or snow or math. And why is it natural? Communal reinforcement is probably the biggest factor here. So how do we "sense" what the word "God" means let alone if one exists?

QuoteOf course, positing the existence of a transcendent reality that exists beyond our material experiences does not necessarily imply the existence of a Divine Personality, or God.

That's right. So to posit the existence of a "transcendent reality" we must at least have a "sense" of what the term "transcendent reality" means. Then we have to provide some sort of evidence.

QuoteBut what if did? What if one viewed the recurring patterns of religious phenomena that so many diverse cultures and civilizations--separated by immeasurable time and distance--seem to have shared as evidence of an active, engaging, transcendent presence...that underlies creation, that, in fact, impels creation?

There's quite a few assertions in that sentence. Viewing suspected patterns does not prove transcendence, creation or an active and engaging presence.

QuoteIs such a possibility any more hypothetical than say, superstring theory or the notion of the multiverse?

Maybe, maybe not. But it is just as hypothetical to posit and believe in a invisible pink unicorn.

QuoteThen again, maybe the {interpretations of alleged} patterns of religious phenomenon signify nothing.

Oh no. They signify many things. Lack of cognition; lack of critical thinking skills, faulty reasoning, gullibility, perpetrating a fraud, delusional, drug use, lack of oxygen to the brain and on and on and on. And a lack of the knowledge of Ocham's Razor.

QuoteMaybe they indicate little more than a common desire among all peoples to answer similar questions of "Ultimate Concern," to use the Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich's famous phrase. The point is that, like any researcher or critic, like any scientist, I'm open to possibilities.

One can be open to possibilities. Even I am open to transcendent divine possibilities. But I have not yet seen any good evidence.

QuoteI became interested in this when I read the Primordial Ocean by Professor Perry (Egyptologist), he was of the opinion that the ancient egyptians had sailed around the world to spread their religion, even reaching Indonesia.

Where are his sources?

"There is no subject -- and can be none -- concerning which any human being is under any obligation to believe without evidence..." - Robert G. Ingersoll

Quote from: Gawen on August 24, 2011, 01:16:11 AM

Quote...one should at the very least have a sense of what the term "God" means.

For many people, it is as natural to believe in fairies and witches and evil eyes and God as it is to believe that fire is hot and snow is cold and two plus two equals four. But this is all irrelevant to whether there are fairies or witches or gods or fire or snow or math. And why is it natural? Communal reinforcement is probably the biggest factor here. So how do we "sense" what the word "God" means let alone if one exists?

Exactly! not only does the word "god" have many different meanings but when a person says the word "god" there are so many different interpretations of the idea just within the religions alone, never mind the individuals perception of their own god. To have a sense of what "god" is you need to acknowledge all the different forms people associate with the word which only creates more problems as a lot are totally opposing concepts.

Isok's Hypotheses of his God

1) God has many names
2) God has no dimension
3) God is one
4) God controls the Universe in an organized way by preventing chaos.
5) God has a concern over other creatures
6) ...look at the universe, everything has divine attributes of God (essentially, God is the Universe)Italics mine

a) Contradiction with #4 Man can set up rivals with God, this is destroying Tawhid and ultimately destroying the reality of others, because it causes chaos. Therefore, God cannot prevent chaos.

Isok's evidence

1)Faith
2) Perceived correlations and/or patterns from other religious faiths
3) Miracles

I have an experiment for you Isok. Please put all the Gods that do exist in a cage and all the Gods that do not exist in another cage. Let us know when you're done so we can see.


Oh...and don't get me going on miracles....*chucklin*

Quote from: Gawen on August 24, 2011, 01:44:20 AM
Isok's Hypotheses of his God

1) God has many names
2) God has no dimension
3) God is one
4) God controls the Universe in an organized way by preventing chaos.
5) God has a concern over other creatures
6) ...look at the universe, everything has divine attributes of God (essentially, God is the Universe)Italics mine

a) Contradiction with #4 Man can set up rivals with God, this is destroying Tawhid and ultimately destroying the reality of others, because it causes chaos. Therefore, God cannot prevent chaos.

Isok's evidence

1)Faith
2) Perceived correlations and/or patterns from other religious faiths
3) Miracles

I have an experiment for you Isok. Please put all the Gods that do exist in a cage and all the Gods that do not exist in another cage. Let us know when you're done so we can see.


Oh...and don't get me going on miracles....*chucklin*

- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

lol, I never said anything about miracles as evidence....
And what's 'chucklin'?

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:42:46 PM
This makes more faith to believe in than faith in God...

Ok. it's 3AM, I can not sleep and am more gray and grumpy than I can remember being this month, so I just have to ask:

What kind of bullshit statement is that?

What is the universal unit of measure of faith? How do you objectively compare things in terms of faith required beyond a simple boolean variable?

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM
[- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

This is starting to look like a variant of the Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) in some form (I just had to throw that in there ;D). Are you saying that your view of what god is changes depending on what you're looking at and how you see it?

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 24, 2011, 02:18:07 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM
[- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

This is starting to look like a variant of the Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) in some form (I just had to throw that in there ;D). Are you saying that your view of what god is changes depending on what you're looking at and how you see it?

Could you be a bit more clear?

Quote from: Asmodean on August 24, 2011, 02:13:42 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 23, 2011, 04:42:46 PM
This makes more faith to believe in than faith in God...

Ok. it's 3AM, I can not sleep and am more gray and grumpy than I can remember being this month, so I just have to ask:

What kind of bullshit statement is that?

What is the universal unit of measure of faith? How do you objectively compare things in terms of faith required beyond a simple boolean variable?

I just said that it takes a lot of faith to belief that different cultures who were isolated from eachother looked at the stars
and all came up with the flood myth. The stars move because there was once a flood which killed a lot of creatures on earth.

Faith cannot be measured, it's something personal for every human being.
Personally, it takes far more faith to belief in the above than faith in a God that sustains the universe, that's what I meant.

If God is the Sun, then i'm reapplying my sunblock before I catch skincancer.

Edit:  btw, doesn't science show that stars look as if they are moving because we orbit ? I dunno, but i'm not a scientist.

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:29:34 AM
I just said that it takes a lot of faith to belief that different cultures who were isolated from eachother looked at the stars
and all came up with the flood myth. The stars move because there was once a flood which killed a lot of creatures on earth.

Faith cannot be measured, it's something personal for every human being.
Personally, it takes far more faith to belief in the above than faith in a God that sustains the universe, that's what I meant.

Personally being the key word, I now regard this as a subjective statement.

Thanks for clarifying.

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:24:58 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 24, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
This is starting to look like a variant of the Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) in some form (I just had to throw that in there ;D). Are you saying that your view of what god is changes depending on what you're looking at and how you see it?

Could you be a bit more clear?

I meant to say is it like god having angles or different viewing points? If you look at and describe one thing then other aspects are hidden? As in no one can know the whole picture (of what god is) at once?

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:29:34 AM
I just said that it takes a lot of faith to belief that different cultures who were isolated from eachother looked at the stars
and all came up with the flood myth. The stars move because there was once a flood which killed a lot of creatures on earth.
Personally, it takes far more faith to belief in the above than faith in a God that sustains the universe, that's what I meant.

Firstly, I would question how many of the flood myths from the New World and other far flung corners of the Earth are of genuine antiquity. The Aztec and Inca flood myths for example are both most probably of post-Columbian origin, the earliest mention of these myths is from well after the Spanish conquest of the Americas. I'm more comfortable dealing with the flood myths from Eurasia that we know are of genuine antiquity.

Secondly you've misunderstood what I said, I think the flood myth as told in the Bible / Gilgamesh Epic / Greek / European mythology is allegorical for the precessional movement of the stars (and in particular the pole star as that's probably how people first would have noticed that stars move over time, although they wouldn't have known why). That's completely different from saying that people believed 'the stars move because there was once a flood which killed a lot of creatures on earth.' I don't think anyone ever thought that.

Personally, I think saying flood myths may be allegorical for the precessional movement of the stars requires less faith than believing that there's a god that sustains the universe (but that's just my subjective view!)

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM
- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

OK, here we have a set of assertions.
How do we go about making these SMART?
(Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely)

Well, first we need to make sense of each of these assertions.
- God is One
One what? If I said the word "Myth" would you answer "God is one"
Does this mean that there is one god rather than many gods?
Does it mean that god is made up of only one atom?
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God is Infinite
Infinite with regards to what?
Infinite in the same way that Space is infinite, a vast never ending nothingness?
Infinite with regards to a concept rather than an actual physical system. E.g. The number "one" is a concept of a singular rather than plural. The concept could be seen as being infinite as there wasn't a time when this concept could be seen as being invalid although "one" is only conceptual and does not exist in of itself.
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Names are simply labels, they have no meaning of themselves.
Perception only leads to misunderstanding, clarity (specific) is what we need in order to quantify (measurable) and test (attainable). Unless this statement is clarified and focused on a measurable it must be thrown out.

- God sustains everything that is
Sustains, in what way?
Everything that is, even inanimate objects?
How is a rock sustained by god?
What about the element Francium
"Francium is the most unstable of the naturally occurring elements: its most stable isotope, francium-223, has a maximum half-life of only 22 minutes"
God doesn't seem to sustain Francium, not for a time period that humans would regard the element as having being sustained.
Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God is the Source all
By source are we meaning the cause of existence?
Is god the perpetual eternal quantum fluctuations that potentially caused matter and energy to come into existence?
We can only guess at this stage what caused existence, this statement fails on being attainable, realistic or timely and hence must be thrown out.

- God is the Destination of all
What is meant by destination?
What is meant by all?
I am destined to die, is god death?
My body is destined to rot and decay, is god decomposition?
Our universe is destined to disperse, is god virtual nothingness?
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

iSok are you able to provide SMART characteristics of your god?

Quote from: iSok

- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

lol, I never said anything about miracles as evidence....
And what's 'chucklin'?

First "Chuckling". You are the first person to ask me since (1997) I've been writing out words instead in smileys. *Chucklin* = laughing quietly. *laffin*=laughing. *smilin*=smiling. *grinnin*= smiling broadly.

As for miracles, you sourced a quote that mentions a flood.

QuoteCompare God with the Sun.

The sun was created.
The sun is big.
The sun is hot.
The sun radiates heat.
The sun radiates light.
The sun will burn you.
The sun will burn you up if you get too close.
The sun is nuclear.
The sun throws out solar flares.
Compared to a wood fire, the sun is violent.
The sun will die.

When you compare God with the sun, you get green light by way of reflected grass.
I compared god to the sun an get attributes such as God is created, big, hot, burns, atomic, shines, violent and dies.

QuoteFaith cannot be measured,

Which is why it fails as evidence.

Your hypotheses and evidence to support them fails. Why then, do you believe?



Great post Stevil!

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM

- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

I see no mention of Mohammed and no mention of the Qur'an or anything particularly Islamic, are you sure you're a Muslim iSok? Your rather abstract and non-denominational descriptions of god make you sound more like a deist to me  ;)
And your allegory of the grass and the Sun reminds me a lot of Plato and his allegory of the cave

Quote from: Stevil on August 24, 2011, 12:24:01 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM
- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

OK, here we have a set of assertions.
How do we go about making these SMART?
(Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely)

Well, first we need to make sense of each of these assertions.
- God is One
One what? If I said the word "Myth" would you answer "God is one"
Does this mean that there is one god rather than many gods?
Does it mean that god is made up of only one atom?
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God is Infinite
Infinite with regards to what?
Infinite in the same way that Space is infinite, a vast never ending nothingness?
Infinite with regards to a concept rather than an actual physical system. E.g. The number "one" is a concept of a singular rather than plural. The concept could be seen as being infinite as there wasn't a time when this concept could be seen as being invalid although "one" is only conceptual and does not exist in of itself.
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Names are simply labels, they have no meaning of themselves.
Perception only leads to misunderstanding, clarity (specific) is what we need in order to quantify (measurable) and test (attainable). Unless this statement is clarified and focused on a measurable it must be thrown out.

- God sustains everything that is
Sustains, in what way?
Everything that is, even inanimate objects?
How is a rock sustained by god?
What about the element Francium
"Francium is the most unstable of the naturally occurring elements: its most stable isotope, francium-223, has a maximum half-life of only 22 minutes"
God doesn't seem to sustain Francium, not for a time period that humans would regard the element as having being sustained.
Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

- God is the Source all
By source are we meaning the cause of existence?
Is god the perpetual eternal quantum fluctuations that potentially caused matter and energy to come into existence?
We can only guess at this stage what caused existence, this statement fails on being attainable, realistic or timely and hence must be thrown out.

- God is the Destination of all
What is meant by destination?
What is meant by all?
I am destined to die, is god death?
My body is destined to rot and decay, is god decomposition?
Our universe is destined to disperse, is god virtual nothingness?
This statement is vague hence non specific. Its meaning is ambiguous and hence cannot be measured. Unless this statement is clarified it must be thrown out.

iSok are you able to provide SMART characteristics of your god?

This is just leading to nowhere, it's pointless to discuss God with atheists...
You're thinking in terms of the scientific method, you are expecting that God can be carefuly defined among
the lines of science. In terms of God's weight, size, tasks (and how?); in other words you want God to be carefuly defined, no matter
the limits you put on Him.

I gave a few methaporical examples of how you can see God and in what way God sustains.
Like the sun making the grass  visible, without the sun the grass would be no longer perceived.
But you twisted it into a literal understanding.

As for your question; no.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 24, 2011, 12:34:28 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:11:59 AM

- God is One
- God is Infinite
- God has many names, so humans can perceive Him in a certain way
- God sustains everything that is
- God is the Source all
- God is the Destination of all

Compare God with the Sun.
The grass is green because it reflects only the green light of the total spectrum of light given by the sun.
Green light is a divine attribute.
A flower might reflect multiple waves of light, so it has multiple divine attributes.
If the sun turns off, then the grass is no longer visible, the same can be said about the universe.
God is not the grass, so He isn't the universe.

The human being is like a mini-sun if he corrects the inward balance.
Otherwise he'll see the grass as blue and will make faulty actions.

I see no mention of Mohammed and no mention of the Qur'an or anything particularly Islamic, are you sure you're a Muslim iSok? Your rather abstract and non-denominational descriptions of god make you sound more like a deist to me  ;)
And your allegory of the grass and the Sun reminds me a lot of Plato and his allegory of the cave

TFL, I believe that God has revealed religions, which makes me a theist.
I believe that the final revelation and the one that is now still pure was the Qur'an, which makes me a Muslim.

I believe in the God that can be found in the Qur'an and who has also revealed other religions around the globe as the Qur'an mentions them as another way to God for humans.
As for the allegory of the cave, I mostly read books written by Al-Ghazali, he gave also some type of an example in 'The Niche of Light's', possibly inspired by Plato.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 24, 2011, 03:15:52 AM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:24:58 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 24, 2011, 02:18:07 AM
This is starting to look like a variant of the Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) in some form (I just had to throw that in there ;D). Are you saying that your view of what god is changes depending on what you're looking at and how you see it?

Could you be a bit more clear?

I meant to say is it like god having angles or different viewing points? If you look at and describe one thing then other aspects are hidden? As in no one can know the whole picture (of what god is) at once?

My condition doesn't change of what God is, but I do change in the way that I can come near to God or draw away from Him.
I posted the reply below a while ago on another forum to explain a few things, it contains elements that you must have heard from me by now
a couple of thousand times, but will contain the answer. The bold part is your answer.

A few interesting replies I read here, people do not seem to like God, I assume it's probably because of the Qur'an.  The thought that God needs to be worshipped is for many people overwhelming, reality however is very different.

Within Islam, the human being is seen as the vicegerent of God (an aspect of Tasbih = similarity with God), since the human being has the 99 names of God but dimmed.
Vicegerency is expressing Tasbih and has strong inclination with the intellectual faculty of imagination, which tends to find relation and unity in all entities.

But within Islam, man is also seen as the slave of God. He is considered as a creature that is far away from the Majestic King; man is seen as a creature that has to follow commands.
Servanthood for man is expressing Tanzih (incomparability with God) and has strong inclination with the intellectual faculty of reason, which tends to analyse and deconstruct everything with the principle of either/or.

Christianity has a strong inclination towards the elements of Tasbih (Imagination and unity).
Hinduism insists even more on Tasbih with Pantheism being the extreme.
Judaism heads more towards elements of Tanzih (Reason). Deism takes Tanzih a step further and it eventually ends up in atheism or agnosticism, which is happening here in the west.

Moses (s) glorified the Majesty of God, Jesus (s) glorified the Mercy of God and Muhammad (s) glorified the Perfection of God.

The Qur'an is simply trying to restore Tawhid, which consists of Tanzih and Tasbih merged in a balanced state. Man was created to adopt this balance, as it's his natural inclination.

I assume that the main goal of every human being whether atheist or theist, black or white, young or old, male or female is the pursuit of happiness and preferably reaching the highest form as possible.
Some might think that it can be found in money or power or sex or a combination of other elements.
From the Islamic point of view, Real happiness comes from growing to the Source of all and the Destination of all. (Islam = Submit to find peace). There need to be certain conditions for this of course, coming near to the divine means that one should submit and be humbled.
Ego, arrogance, envy, anger and even false desires which lead to misery are examples of how multiple obstacles are in the way of this journey to the Divine, since you cannot come near the Divine if you carry them. A Muslim rather works on this in this life then to face them when God demands all creation to be returned willingly or unwillingly.

The Qur'an is nothing more than a mirror which shows our current progress, of who we really are deep inside.

Thanks for the clarification.

ISoK

It is pointless discussing God with people who value critical thinking, are skeptical and who value evidence over assertion. That sort of person also tends to be an atheist nowadays. In the West theists can no longer get their own way through bribery, seduction and bullying. Everybody has to justify their world view. If they can't justify it then it will be ignored. Atheism isn't a dogma, an orthodoxy or a faith, it isn't a cause of a way of thinking, it is a result of a way of thinking.

The basis of theism is institutionalised superstition and as such it can't stand rigorous examination. To believe in something one can not adequately describe used to be acceptable but that is no longer the case. In addition humanity has grown up and can live knowing it doesn't matter if we don't know everything. In the days when we didn't know what a star or planet were then our ancestors filled in the gaps with stories, fiction that kept away the fear that ignorance brings.

We don't need comfort stories anymore, not because we know everything, but because we know enough. It's time to leave the stories from our past in the past and create new stories of our future, a future free from superstition. One can't produce a god hypothesis because, to put it bluntly, there is apparently no god.

Regards
Chris

Just to add to what Tank said, it's one thing when a person wants to believe in whatever they want but another when societies want to push their ways of thinking and acting on people who don't share their views. And to deny that it happens is naive.

Religions just aren't able to convince more and more people anymore, precisely because of what this entire thread is about. No one can demonstrate a paptable and real (in any sense) god, without any room for doubt, and yet people want others to live in accordance.

Not that I'm saying that you specifically iSok are trying to push your views on anybody here, you're defending them, which is fine. I'm just saying that in the generalised sense. It's what religious societies do.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 24, 2011, 02:35:05 AM
If God is the Sun, then i'm reapplying my sunblock before I catch skincancer.

You don't want godcancer?

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:44:02 PMA few interesting replies I read here, people do not seem to like God, I assume it's probably because of the Qur'an.

First: don't assume. The problem with these kinds of baseless assumptions is that you're more often wrong causing lot's of clarification and time wasted. So instead of assuming, ask and listen or just go off of what was said.

Second: I can't like or dislike something that doesn't exist (except cyborg, zombie, pirate ninjas... those are awesome).

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:44:02 PM

The Qur'an is nothing more than a mirror which shows our current progress, of who we really are deep inside.

Having read the Qur'an, I think it's more a mirror of seventh century Arabia, which is rather different from the 21st century Europe I live in.

Quote from: Tank on August 24, 2011, 04:25:14 PM
ISoK

It is pointless discussing God with people who value critical thinking, are skeptical and who value evidence over assertion. That sort of person also tends to be an atheist nowadays. In the West theists can no longer get their own way through bribery, seduction and bullying. Everybody has to justify their world view. If they can't justify it then it will be ignored. Atheism isn't a dogma, an orthodoxy or a faith, it isn't a cause of a way of thinking, it is a result of a way of thinking.

The basis of theism is institutionalised superstition and as such it can't stand rigorous examination. To believe in something one can not adequately describe used to be acceptable but that is no longer the case. In addition humanity has grown up and can live knowing it doesn't matter if we don't know everything. In the days when we didn't know what a star or planet were then our ancestors filled in the gaps with stories, fiction that kept away the fear that ignorance brings.

We don't need comfort stories anymore, not because we know everything, but because we know enough. It's time to leave the stories from our past in the past and create new stories of our future, a future free from superstition. One can't produce a god hypothesis because, to put it bluntly, there is apparently no god.

Regards
Chris

Tank, I hope you'll value my opinion also.

I am of the opinion that Intelligence consists of two major factions, namely Reason and Imagination.
Western thought has taken Reason as THE intelligence instead of AN intelligence.

Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.
The post above for xSilverPhinx, explains what happens when people adopt the way of reason solely, they become atheists or agnostics.
I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.
God is tanzih + tasbih, and one can not rest on tanzih to know God.

That doesn't mean that I am against science, I attend university myself and study a branch of science.
But science has it's place and should not be considered as an universal tool.

Quote from: Davin on August 24, 2011, 05:06:27 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:44:02 PMA few interesting replies I read here, people do not seem to like God, I assume it's probably because of the Qur'an.

First: don't assume. The problem with these kinds of baseless assumptions is that you're more often wrong causing lot's of clarification and time wasted. So instead of assuming, ask and listen or just go off of what was said.

Second: I can't like or dislike something that doesn't exist (except cyborg, zombie, pirate ninjas... those are awesome).

The reply over there was from another forum in a different discussion, as I mentioned clearly to xSilverPhinx.
Not about the people here.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 24, 2011, 05:23:19 PM

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:44:02 PM

The Qur'an is nothing more than a mirror which shows our current progress, of who we really are deep inside.

Having read the Qur'an, I think it's more a mirror of seventh century Arabia, which is rather different from the 21st century Europe I live in.

I see it as an anchor chaining many to seventh century Arabia.

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 05:38:49 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 24, 2011, 04:25:14 PM
ISoK

It is pointless discussing God with people who value critical thinking, are skeptical and who value evidence over assertion. That sort of person also tends to be an atheist nowadays. In the West theists can no longer get their own way through bribery, seduction and bullying. Everybody has to justify their world view. If they can't justify it then it will be ignored. Atheism isn't a dogma, an orthodoxy or a faith, it isn't a cause of a way of thinking, it is a result of a way of thinking.

The basis of theism is institutionalised superstition and as such it can't stand rigorous examination. To believe in something one can not adequately describe used to be acceptable but that is no longer the case. In addition humanity has grown up and can live knowing it doesn't matter if we don't know everything. In the days when we didn't know what a star or planet were then our ancestors filled in the gaps with stories, fiction that kept away the fear that ignorance brings.

We don't need comfort stories anymore, not because we know everything, but because we know enough. It's time to leave the stories from our past in the past and create new stories of our future, a future free from superstition. One can't produce a god hypothesis because, to put it bluntly, there is apparently no god.

Regards
Chris

Tank, I hope you'll value my opinion also.

I am of the opinion that Intelligence consists of two major factions, namely Reason and Imagination.
Western thought has taken Reason as THE intelligence instead of AN intelligence.

Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.
The post above for xSilverPhinx, explains what happens when people adopt the way of reason solely, they become atheists or agnostics.
I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.
God is tanzih + tasbih, and one can not rest on tanzih to know God.

That doesn't mean that I am against science, I attend university myself and study a branch of science.
But science has it's place and should not be considered as an universal tool.

Science cannot function without imagination. One has to be able to imagine something one does not have evidence for. This is the basis of a hypothesis. Every scientific discovery started out with "I wonder if...", that is imagination. I have a very, very vigorous imagination, I read fiction and fantasy books. What the scientific method does is allow one to choose which imaginings are fact and which are fantasy.

The trouble is that science has proved to be a very good universal tool in telling us what is real and what is not, and it continues to tell us that god is not real by continuing to expose the true mechanisms of the universe that we inhabit.

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 02:31:24 PM
This is just leading to nowhere, it's pointless to discuss God with atheists...
You're thinking in terms of the scientific method, you are expecting that God can be carefuly defined among
the lines of science. In terms of God's weight, size, tasks (and how?); in other words you want God to be carefuly defined, no matter
the limits you put on Him.

I gave a few methaporical examples of how you can see God and in what way God sustains.
Like the sun making the grass  visible, without the sun the grass would be no longer perceived.
But you twisted it into a literal understanding.

As for your question; no.

I understand your frustration, and believe me when I say that I am frustrated too.
I am really trying hard to keep an open mind with regards to god and belief in god.
But I am who I am and I am trying to find a bridge of understanding from my world to your world.

I really struggle to believe in something because a person tells me it is true or because a book tells me it is the truth.
I need something more tangible, something that suggests that the idea is more than pure imagination.
Surely there is some way of proving.
People say that god answers prayer, we could test for this, but then they say god only answers certain types of prayer, after indepth probing it turns out that the answered prayer is of the type that is untestable, which is no different to if there were no god.
Catholics tell me that the wine and bread taken at eucharist becomes Jesus blood and flesh once eaten, I suggest examining stomach contents and then they suggest that I would only find wine and bread.
Catholics talk about eucharist miracles where the blood and flesh of Jesus have been gathered in an incorruptible state over different time periods and they get excited that all these samples are AB+
I ask for DNA testing but they come up with excuses.

Don't you find it strange that god is so shy and that the universe acts in a way that could easily be consistent with a theory that there is no god at all?

The requirement for faith reeks of a cover up with regards to there being absolutely no proof or evidence. The requirement to be a believer or face the consequence of eternal damnation reeks of this as well as points to an unjust, vain god, if one were to exist.

How can an adult that doesn't currently believe in god get to a point where they believe absolutely that god exists?

Quote from: Tank on August 24, 2011, 05:58:30 PM
it continues to tell us that god is not real by continuing to expose the true mechanisms of the universe that we inhabit.

I don't agree.
Science focuses on that which is provable.

Religion focuses on theology and philosophy (of sorts), they keep their understanding within the realm of conceptual, likely because they know if they cross over into the world of physical then science will apply its magic and eventually they will have to face the scrutinisation that they so desperately attempt to avoid.

Science is a search for the truth
Religion is an imaginative exploration of the idea of a god.

What Pudding said.

And iSok..? Why do you feel the need to attribute properties to me which I do not have..?

You see, the mirror image of my metaphorical innards is nothing like your old piece of literature.

Quote from: Davin on August 24, 2011, 04:57:04 PM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 24, 2011, 02:35:05 AM
If God is the Sun, then i'm reapplying my sunblock before I catch skincancer.

You don't want godcancer?

No :P

I think it's completely wrong to say science doesn't take imagination.   I mean, has anyone seen any movie that involves an actor in a body suit colored in tiny green foam balls to be transferred onto a computer?   It's simply amazin! Lord of the rings, harry potter and bejamin button all used this technology.    If science isnt fueled by imagination, and wonderous things, I don't know what is.   I love science.   It allows us to stop being ignorant  simpletons, amused by shiny superstitions .

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.

This is grossly incorrect, especially with the example given. Not only does science recognize the imagination of art it is embraced by it and artists embrace the sciences. Many people consider mathematics just a tool of science but it is immensely imaginative and in its most efficient forms is a work of art in itself whether its intentional or not. The argument that disregards the lack of imagination is appalling as its quite obvious to anybody that understands the basic concepts of science that imagination is a prerequisite. Imagination is also a defining factor in what separates the amazing scientists from the average, take string theory the imagination involved in the concept of that theory goes far beyond anything any religious organisations have ever invented.

Why is it that the biggest names in contemporary art, design, photography, fashion, ect are atheist? and why is it that no notable art has come out of the religious institutions since there golden years?

Quote from: iSok on August 24, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.

I don't think you have defined your idea of god using a hypothesis, not even close. You gave initial points to your concept of what is a god but the initial points didn't add up to your reasoning (the evidence) nor was the concept explained in a way that helps others gain any understanding, it may make sense to yourself and perhaps those with a similar interpretation of a god but to people that have heard so many different god concepts before it is vague to put it mildly. Think of a hypothesis as a pitch for a job. You are selling an idea; you need the client to understand your idea in the most efficient form necessary but need to be thorough at the same time giving an explanation for each section showing your reasoning whilst not being condescending.

Logic and reason is great. But that can ONLY happen without the human. Face it we are more than facts and figures .

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 01:47:43 AM
Face it we are more than facts and figures .

We are also numbers and equasions.

Quote from: Asmodean on August 25, 2011, 07:02:37 AM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 01:47:43 AM
Face it we are more than facts and figures .

We are also numbers and equasions.

yes yes. I just think we all get a bit too high and mighty with the whole I AM LOGICAL spheel. It's all phooee if you ask me. We are a mix of chemicals all just a stone's throw away from crazies.  :P

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 07:16:50 AMIt's all phooee if you ask me. We are a mix of chemicals all just a stone's throw away from crazies.  :P

Chemistry is numbers and equasions too. Nothing at all crazy about it.

Quote from: Crow on August 24, 2011, 11:36:16 PM
why is it that no notable art has come out of the religious institutions since there golden years?

I learnt on my travels in Itally, in particular my visit to the Uffizi art gallery that there are only a finite amount of paintings of Jesus on a cross or Madonna with Bambina that a human can see in a life time. I never want to see one again!

Quote from: Asmodean on August 25, 2011, 07:58:33 AM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 07:16:50 AMIt's all phooee if you ask me. We are a mix of chemicals all just a stone's throw away from crazies.  :P

Chemistry is numbers and equasions too. Nothing at all crazy about it.

you are correct.
Feel better?
I bet there was a logical and reasonable reason for you to get that last word in. ;D

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 08:23:06 AM
I bet there was a logical and reasonable reason for you to get that last word in. ;D

At the end of the day, there is a logical and reasonable reason for pretty much everything. At least, for near-everything reasonably explained.

   

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 08:01:24 AM

Quote from: Crow on August 24, 2011, 11:36:16 PM
why is it that no notable art has come out of the religious institutions since there golden years?

I learnt on my travels in Itally, in particular my visit to the Uffizi art gallery that there are only a finite amount of paintings of Jesus on a cross or Madonna with Bambina that a human can see in a life time. I never want to see one again!

One giant reason I have no desire to visit Italy.    I think that country is built on relogion. Despite having amazing food, I woild probably feel sick there as an atheist. :/

Regarding the relationship between science and imagination.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Albert Einstein
Stephen Hawking
Charles Darwin
Isaac Newton
Galileo Galilei
Louis Pasteur
Etc, etc, etc

Great scientist have to have great imaginations too make the breakthroughs that they do, they have to move beyond the current view of reality and create a new perspective.

Not to mention, everyone you listed above was born -- in term-- "beyond their time."

Everyone thought Einstein was insane, til he proved them wrong with science.

I can't imagine what Newton went thtough with gravity.


Ps-sorry for above typos, it's 4am. X_x

Quote from: Stevil on August 24, 2011, 09:57:53 PM

Quote from: Tank on August 24, 2011, 05:58:30 PM
it continues to tell us that god is not real by continuing to expose the true mechanisms of the universe that we inhabit.

I don't agree.
Science focuses on that which is provable.

Religion focuses on theology and philosophy (of sorts), they keep their understanding within the realm of conceptual, likely because they know if they cross over into the world of physical then science will apply its magic and eventually they will have to face the scrutinisation that they so desperately attempt to avoid.

Science is a search for the truth
Religion is an imaginative exploration of the idea of a god.

Allow me to expand upon my thoughts. I'll use three examples, Astronomy, Biology and Physics.

Astronomy

Theological view: Geocentric, Earth is the centre of not only the solar system but universe.
Scientific view: Heliocentric solar system.
Scientific view: Hubble space telescope, illustrated our real importance in the universe

Biology

Theistic view: All species created as is. Illness caused by spirits/possession/demons
Scientific view: Species evolve.
Scientific view: Illness caused by internal (genetic) agents or external agents (chemicals, pathogens, vitamin deficiencies etc)

Physics

Theistic view: None, sheer guesswork about matter and forces.
Scientific view: Standard model of particles and forces, still a work in progress.
Scientific view: Spacetime, relativity and quantum mechanics, experimentally demonstrable effects.

Theistic assertions about reality have continually been overturned be scientific research, that is what I mean when I say that science marginalised god. Science continually demonstrates that theistic claims about god's capabilities are incorrect and in doing so diminish the claims of theists to possession of a valid 'truth'.

Science does focus on what is provable, but when describing reality what is the value of something that cannot be proved? Religions and science both search for the truth. However religions start out by stating a truth and then attempt to make reality fit that truth, while science searchs reality for truth and will continue to do so continually refining that truth based on increased understanding.

Scientific advancenment has marginalised superstition and thus the god concept is reduced to wishfull thinking.

I hope that explains my thought processes a little better  :)

 

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 25, 2011, 08:48:30 AM
One giant reason I have no desire to visit Italy.    I think that country is built on relogion. Despite having amazing food, I woild probably feel sick there as an atheist. :/

Itally was nice actually.
The Vatican was interesting to see its extravagance and granduer, it exuded wealth and corruption (IMHO).
To see a marble statue made by Michelangelo and then a small wooden box with the word "offerings" it was such unashamed greed, then you would walk past and see marble statue after marble statue of pope's gone by. Wondering how long it will take them to gather enough money to make their next statue of a pope.
But surprisingly the Vatican museum was quite interesting, alot of egyptian artifacts and mummies etc that they had pillaged from their conquests.

Rome itself and the ruins is magnificent, to be walking where people walked and to see a building that people saw 2,000 years ago. In NZ we are lucky to see a building over 150 years old.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 25, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
Not to mention, everyone you listed above was born -- in term-- "beyond their time."

Everyone thought Einstein was insane, til he proved them wrong with science.

I can't imagine what Newton went thtough with gravity.


Ps-sorry for above typos, it's 4am. X_x

He didn't have a great deal of problems with gravity as you can always drop a brick on somebody's foot. He did have some problems with the laws of motion as these were more abstract and difficult to demonstrate.

I like that list, espesically biology, because it is a truly fascinating subject.



The theists that believe in posession and demons make me chortle.

Quote from: Tank on August 25, 2011, 09:39:37 AM

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 25, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
Not to mention, everyone you listed above was born -- in term-- "beyond their time."

Everyone thought Einstein was insane, til he proved them wrong with science.

I can't imagine what Newton went thtough with gravity.


Ps-sorry for above typos, it's 4am. X_x

He didn't have a great deal of problems with gravity as you can always drop a brick on somebody's foot. He did have some problems with the laws of motion as these were more abstract and difficult to demonstrate.

Ah, I can see that.  If only Bill Nye were around to help.  He helped me understand inertia. XD

Quote from: Tank on August 25, 2011, 09:34:56 AM
I hope that explains my thought processes a little better  :)

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't think science is disproving god.
There isn't a god theory, maybe not even a hypothesis, just a dream, well, many dreams of many people, who like the idea of a god, and run with the idea. The theologies built upon the idea are so elaborate and so deep giving the illusion that there is a concrete foundation, but the theology creators know they must keep theology conceptual because they know science can prove physical systems.

No matter how hard you look towards science you cannot prove against a theory that doesn't even exist.

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 09:48:44 AM

Quote from: Tank on August 25, 2011, 09:34:56 AM
I hope that explains my thought processes a little better  :)

I understand what you are getting at, but I don't think science is disproving god.
There isn't a god theory, maybe not even a hypothesis, just a dream, well, many dreams of many people, who like the idea of a god, and run with the idea. The theologies built upon the idea are so elaborate and so deep giving the illusion that there is a concrete foundation, but the theology creators know they must keep theology conceptual because they know science can prove physical systems.

No matter how hard you look towards science you cannot prove against a theory that doesn't even exist.

I agree. I understand what you are getting at now.  :)

Quote from: Stevil
I don't think science is disproving god....
No matter how hard you look towards science you cannot prove against a theory that doesn't even exist.

True, science can't deal with god directly.  What it has done, and continues to do, is to chip away at all the areas that religion used to dominate.  God is now standing on a pretty small foundation, and it's shrinking.

^  I think this is seriously the best way to put it.  We now know of how so much of the world functions, including biology of living things.

I really can't wait for science continues to thrive, and open up more answers.

Quote from: OldGit on August 25, 2011, 10:09:11 AM
True, science can't deal with god directly.  What it has done, and continues to do, is to chip away at all the areas that religion used to dominate.  God is now standing on a pretty small foundation, and it's shrinking.

This makes sense to you, me and most atheists, but we are preaching to the converted here LOL

To theists, like iSok, it makes no difference. Science simply shows them how god acheived some things. Scripture have been open to interpretation since their inception. The only assertions that are unchangable are the the unprovable ones.
God exists, god is all powerfull, god created existence, god is good, god is perfect, god is like the sun (WTF).

Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:47:30 AM



Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 10:51:53 AM

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:47:30 AM



Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:53:37 AM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 10:51:53 AM

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:47:30 AM



Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 11:04:40 AM

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:53:37 AM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 10:51:53 AM

Quote from: Stevil on August 25, 2011, 10:47:30 AM



Nothing else seems to matter to theists. They don't look for proof, they pride themselves in their reliance on belief (the more belief they have, the more worthy they are of a place in heaven). Their logic is based on pure theology. Science and reality does not affect them.

That's not true of all theists. I know quite a few who go about their religion with reason and logic.

I'm not saying that they are illogical or unreasoned, just that their basis is theology and these basic assertions. These don't conflict when compared with reality or science.

Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

Would he have the time/inclination to join in here?

Quote from: Tank on August 25, 2011, 11:22:49 AM
Would he have the time/inclination to join in here?

Yes, would be interesting to hear how he reasons that science substantiates the position that there is a god.
Although my current feeling is that he would likely point out the gaps in scientific knowledge, e.g. comological argument or argument of complexity or fine tuning.
If he has something other than gaps, I would be really interested.

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 11:04:40 AM
Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I'm not surprised that he hasn't tried to make logical rational argument using the Qur'an, that was written by people who still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth!
It would be interesting to hear how he reconciles his rational reasoning with Islam (and the Qur'an in particular).

Personally I'm not sure science will ever displace religion, unless we all become super intelligent and rational creatures (it seems to me most people are neither). I'm sure one day they'll find which genes or wiring in the brain (somewhere in the frontal lobe?) influence our decision to be believers or skeptics (or somewhere inbetween). Scientists  / atheists will say this explains religion and the belief in gods, believers will say their god designed those genes / neural pathways so that we'd believe in him!

It just seems highly unlikely for religion and science to co-exist.

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 11:04:40 AM
Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I just thought, a Muslim and a Satanist, I bet there aren't many couples like that in the world. Does he think that you're going to burn in hell and have boiling hot water poured down your throat for all eternity after you die? or does he ignore that part of the Qur'an!

I think that nowadays people rely more heavily on the existential aspect of religion rather than looking for any scientific explanation (unless they are scientifically ignorant in the broad sense).

Also, since they're claiming that god is a supernatural entity, no tool used to decipher the natural world (science) can ever test god, who is unreachable, unfalsifiable, untestable and based on word of mouth and books thousands of years old that were written by people of their time. It's what Stephen J Gould called 'non overlapping magestiria', and I agree with him. However, a theistic god is supposed to intervene in the natural universe, and there aren't any good proofs for that sort of phenomena either. Then you see the weird rationalisations and the extreme emphasis on belief.

Personally I think that if you have to need belief, then there can't be much there. There are what they call 'religious experiences', but I tend to have and accept other psychological explanations for those.  

Of the more educated theists I've encountered, they know very well not to put scripture over the results of the scientific process, at most they incorporate models of reality into their metaphysical one.

 

Just to add a last thing in this thread.

Science has it's own language to explain reality, from the micro-world, to the macro-world, to the mega-world.
Religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism to describe reality.

Stevil, maybe this article will be an interesting read for you.

http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/Public/articles/What_We_Are_and_Where_We_Are.aspx

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 01:47:43 AM
Logic and reason is great. But that can ONLY happen without the human. Face it we are more than facts and figures .

You may want to watch the three part series "the code", especially episode three as it looks at the mathematical code behind biology and how interaction can be replicated and predicted, here is an excerpt from that episode which looks at the flight of starlings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFU5_pVkoZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFU5_pVkoZM), the actual episode goes into more detail about human patterns.

Quote from: iSok on August 25, 2011, 04:15:46 PM
Science has it's own language to explain reality

Mathematics..?

Quote from: iSok on August 25, 2011, 04:15:46 PM
Just to add a last thing in this thread.

Science has it's own language to explain reality, from the micro-world, to the macro-world, to the mega-world.
Religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism to describe reality.

The problem I have with metaphors is that they are always vague and open to interpretation, and you don't have to travel far into the metaphor before the imilarities breakdown. When taken at a very simplistic level they can be used to assist a person come to an understanding, but only a simple understanding of one aspect of something which you are wanting to convey.

In discussions with Catholics I am learning about their adherence to symbolism. It seems very unusual and primitive to me. Very odd. I don't know how they get value out of symbolism.

^
In the end, there are only facts and truth.  If the sky is dark, opressed by gray clouds during the early morning, we can safely say it is most likely going to rain.  We know this from weather facts and study.

Living in a world without logic is like staring into the sun.

Quote from: iSok on August 25, 2011, 04:15:46 PM
Just to add a last thing in this thread.

Science has it's own language to explain reality, from the micro-world, to the macro-world, to the mega-world.
Religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism to describe reality.

I'd certainly say religion uses the language of methaphors and symbolism, but I don't think it describes reality in any way shape or form. Myths and religions may have attempted to serve that purpose thousands of years ago, but we live in more enlightened times. We have levels of knowledge and understanding about the universe that the writers of the Qu'ran or Bible or any other old religious texts couldn't ever have imagined.

I think the main word to use is "outdated."
Imagine living in those times where technology never existed. Humankind tried to use a rule or guidebook of stories to help them understand even the simplest thing.

You either evolve or get left behind. Period.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 25, 2011, 12:46:26 PM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 11:04:40 AM
Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I just thought, a Muslim and a Satanist, I bet there aren't many couples like that in the world. Does he think that you're going to burn in hell and have boiling hot water poured down your throat for all eternity after you die? or does he ignore that part of the Qur'an!

I'll get to that part in a minute.



I will ask him if he'd like to join. Though he may not be able to A)join right away or B) might be able to but posts may be days in the making. He starts his residency program at the hospital (he's a doctor! Yippe!) and his first two months are in his specialty, which is surgery. So with long butt shifts and 6 day work week I don't know if he has the time.


And now for the going to hell part. You'd think I would have dealt with this question on numerous occasions. This occasion being someone asking me such a question. Only you and one other person has thought to ask that. I guess the other people were just happy I found love. But whatever.  I did ask him this question (when the other person asked) and the answer he gave me was this.

I do not presume to know who is going to hell. I could be going to hell In šāʾ Allāh (God willing). My fiance loves me and I love him. He respects me and does not push HIS religion on me or keep me from practicing mine. Nor do I keep him from his religion etc.

*trust me this is why I say he's a man of science. Unless you become a medical doctor with the knowledge of a goat.

Quote from: Medusa on August 26, 2011, 12:01:37 AM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 25, 2011, 12:46:26 PM

Quote from: Medusa on August 25, 2011, 11:04:40 AM
Well I can see your side of things. But since I've been with a theist for 5 years or so, he's pretty much based in science and reason. He has made his arguments to me which do not involve the Qur'an but science. Doesn't mean I always follow it. But I so see where he's getting his opinions from.

I just thought, a Muslim and a Satanist, I bet there aren't many couples like that in the world. Does he think that you're going to burn in hell and have boiling hot water poured down your throat for all eternity after you die? or does he ignore that part of the Qur'an!

I'll get to that part in a minute.



I will ask him if he'd like to join. Though he may not be able to A)join right away or B) might be able to but posts may be days in the making. He starts his residency program at the hospital (he's a doctor! Yippe!) and his first two months are in his specialty, which is surgery. So with long butt shifts and 6 day work week I don't know if he has the time.


And now for the going to hell part. You'd think I would have dealt with this question on numerous occasions. This occasion being someone asking me such a question. Only you and one other person has thought to ask that. I guess the other people were just happy I found love. But whatever.  I did ask him this question (when the other person asked) and the answer he gave me was this.

I do not presume to know who is going to hell. I could be going to hell In šāʾ Allāh (God willing). My fiance loves me and I love him. He respects me and does not push HIS religion on me or keep me from practicing mine. Nor do I keep him from his religion etc.

*trust me this is why I say he's a man of science. Unless you become a medical doctor with the knowledge of a goat.

good answer, I'm happy that you found love too. I always like to think heaven and hell would be the same place anyway if they did exist, as my idea of hell would be the idea of having to spend eternity with a bunch of devout Christians (or Muslims)  ;)

"The evidence is everywhere, you just need to believe first." is a common theological excuse.

Too many theists fall under this and it's called "Begging the Question" and Isok uses it many times. Essentially, they're saying that one needs to be biased and interpret everything with "God Glasses" on.  At any rate, this argument admits that the evidence for God isn't really out there, that it's all a matter of interpretation, not evidence. 

Isok (and others) also use the fallacy of division, where that a whole has a property, a part of the whole also has that property (eg. in his Gods attributes). Example: God is this and the Universe is that which is god. It's like saying water is liquid, therefore H2O molecules are liquid.
Isok used the appeal to authority fallacy as well.

And then we saw the Weak Analogy fallacy:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) God has a certain attributes.
Therefore:
(3) Man (Universe, whatever) must have that characteristic too.

Everyone uses these fallacies whether knowingly or not from time to time. The problem with Isok in particular and theism in general is that - science proposes hypotheses as explanations/proof/evidence of phenomena, whereas theology does it backwards. Theology has built in phenomena (god) and then tries to explain/prove/evidence it, which is a fallacy in itself.

One can hypothesize a god. But the hypothesis fails until some sort of quanitative/qualitative evidence surfaces to support it. Cramming fallacies and wishful thinking into evidence doesn't work until someone (everyone) can actually trot out a god and say "See? There it is!"

I think i'm going to make a pair of god glassses irl now. XD

I'm not feeling quite so lucky right now though. It's 7pm here and I've been stuck in the office since 5 because it's been hammering down like a monsoon for the past three hours non-stop! I'd get absolutely drenched walking home in eight minutes, and that's with my umbrella and kagool.

incessant shit cold wet weather is one of the many reasons why I don't believe there's a god! But seriously, I do wonder if it's partly a reason why there's a bedrock of atheism in Nordic countries.

When I used to work in long island (gift and bar mitzvah shop);  whenever it rained a little, it flooded.

It was literally hell. I also feel SO BAD for anyone who is without power for a long period of time.

If there is a god, and he enjoys watching humanity o through this constant barrade of extreme weather, he's not a god worthy of love or worship.
Don't believe believe in the sky daddy anyway, but man, it's   annoying.

I'd like to be the devil's/god's advocate for a while here and say that's it's already quite reasonable to assume that humanity is not at the center of the universe or much less Earth, so why would should he/she/it care if people are flooded? ;D

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 26, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
I'd like to be the devil's/god's advocate for a while here and say that's it's already quite reasonable to assume that humanity is not at the center of the universe or much less Earth, so why would should he/she/it care if people are flooded? ;D

it's funny you should use the phrase 'center of the universe or much less Earth', one of my main interests in mythology / religion is the idea of the axis mundi and the belief that god(s)' home was at the pole star, the centre of the heavens

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 26, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
I'd like to be the devil's/god's advocate for a while here and say that's it's already quite reasonable to assume that humanity is not at the center of the universe or much less Earth, so why would should he/she/it care if people are flooded? ;D

People also assume their god to be good, but maybe there is a god that doesn't really care about morals.

I dunno. Even though my pet rat Mikoto is not the center of my wotld, I should still feed and change her bedding. XP

If a god claims to be all loving and merciful, then letting peopls be crushed to death in a huricane is kind of cruel.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 26, 2011, 08:53:46 PM
it's funny you should use the phrase 'center of the universe or much less Earth', one of my main interests in mythology / religion is the idea of the axis mundi and the belief that god(s)' home was at the pole star, the centre of the heavens

Whose mythology would that be? ???

Quote from: Stevil on August 26, 2011, 09:22:32 PM
People also assume their god to be good, but maybe there is a god that doesn't really care about morals.

To make it worse, it's an immoral or amoral (according to the bible, does not adhere to the same morality that he wants people to adhere to) but perfect god who cares so much about morals. Try and make sense of that ;D

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 26, 2011, 09:26:53 PM
I dunno. Even though my pet rat Mikoto is not the center of my wotld, I should still feed and change her bedding. XP

If a god claims to be all loving and merciful, then letting peopls be crushed to death in a huricane is kind of cruel.

"If a god claims to be theists claim that their god is all loving and merciful..."

There's the problem.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 26, 2011, 10:16:15 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on August 26, 2011, 08:53:46 PM
it's funny you should use the phrase 'center of the universe or much less Earth', one of my main interests in mythology / religion is the idea of the axis mundi and the belief that god(s)' home was at the pole star, the centre of the heavens

Whose mythology would that be? ???

Pretty much everyone's! There's elements of it in ancient Egyptian religion, Sumerian / Babylonian religion, Hinduism, ancient Greek religion, Canaanite religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Norse religion, Mongolian religion, Taoism, Aztec religion etc etc even some stone circles (and the Pyramids) have alignments to the old pole star of the time.

Along with the Sun, it was the most important celestial object of worship. It was generally represented in religions / mythology by the World Tree (eg Yggdrasil) or World Pillar (Irminsul) or Holy Mountain (eg Olympus / Meru / Sinai / Zion etc) and was linked to the idea of there being a navel of the Earth (eg Mecca, Delphi, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya), the eartly equivalent of the pole star.

I think it's pretty logical for the ancients to have perceived the home of the gods to have been at the centre of the heavens from where they could  control the universe;

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F2175%2Fnorthpolemalin.jpg&hash=1e19a56f08608050a95b716107088de6535db577) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/710/northpolemalin.jpg/)

^ i've noticed this!   All mythologies revolve around the sun as their main object of worship.

I love the sun god Ra from Egyptian mythology. <3

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 31, 2011, 04:42:00 PM
^ i've noticed this!   All mythologies revolve around the sun as their main object of worship.

I love the sun god Ra from Egyptian mythology. <3

as they should, given that our lives do rather depend upon the light from that glorious orb!
And Ra was very cool, what's not to love about a god with a falcon's head?

Yup!  *rolls around in the Sun*  I need a tan.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 31, 2011, 09:47:22 PM
Yup!  *rolls around in the Sun*  I need a tan.

I have to board an aeroplane and go abroad for one of those!

No sun where you live?  I'll send Ra over.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 01, 2011, 12:34:52 AM
No sun where you live?  I'll send Ra over.

He arrived this morning, thanks for that SD  :D

  No problem!   Enjoy.  :D

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 31, 2011, 04:42:00 PM
^ i've noticed this!   All mythologies revolve around the sun as their main object of worship.

I love the sun god Ra from Egyptian mythology. <3

There is a hypothesis that the Jesus mythology was centered around an eclipse.

An eclipse?  Really?  Hm, I would like to hear more if you find anything else.

Quote from: Sweetdeath on September 05, 2011, 08:05:06 PM
An eclipse?  Really?  Hm, I would like to hear more if you find anything else.

Try this:
"Enoch's Cosmology" - 1.0 Jesus Eclipse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnTAvk3xmmk

then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPJC7DIXsAM&feature=related

and then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kXJql9Mzoc&feature=related

Yay, thanks!  I read some of Enoch before, but not this part.

I like the third one best. Light, light, light.
Very funny.

Quote from: Stevil on September 07, 2011, 11:58:51 AM
I like the third one best. Light, light, light.
Very funny.

The guy has a point. I've been in contact with him (I can't believe the sources he's been reading. Frakin tomes...). What he says makes a lot of sense, but we will never really know if it was true.