Religion

Yes I agree with that statement. I also have to say that it is not through good deeds that get you into Heaven. I mean you can be the nicest, most perfect person in the world, but if you have not excepted Christ as your saver you will not go to Heaven.

 

So then you fall into the first group of Christians, who are denying a chance of conversion.

 

Why are we denying a chance of conversion?

 

Sorry, I meant to direct that point in the Capital Punishment thread (posted in the wrong one). I'll respond to this there.

 

Well, I'm Evangelical Lutheran, like most of Finnish people. I don't believe in gods or anything... So, I can call myself atheist.

 

(Just quickly, the big bang theory is that the contents of the universe was actually compressed into a ball the size of a pin prick, and the pressure was so great is collapsed in on itself and the four forces [I think it's four] in it were sent out at an enormous speed, then the debris that was left collected together to create the balls of gas [stars] and the rocks and larva covered planets that were pulled into its gravitational pull?)

Anyways - I agree that there's some striking similarities, there's also an interesting tale about a clan from way before the time of Christ which were super advanced in everything from language to astronomy and they worshiped the planets and stars, the main planet being the tenth that we only discovered over the past couple of years, and they believed this place to be called "Idan" (pronounced Eden) and the 'god' that they worshipped on this planet apparently came to earth, saw man and created woman from man by making man [the human man] mate with the alien females, then the gods condemned women (just like the Bible does in many cases) out of jealousy, for their looks being so much more appealing than those of the female aliens. The name of the clan escapes me, but if I remember it I'll be sure to mention it here. But again, striking similarities.

Anyways - after all that, I'm an atheist (from the literal meaning "without god"). I don't believe there's a god out there, but I'm open minded to plenty of other 'supernatural' (for lack of a better word) phenomena.

 

I thought I had already commented on Xadimurti's remarks, but I guess my browser screwed up and it didn't post (it happens a lot...HOORAY FOR VISTA!)

The major problem with theories about alien sources of life (ie. they bring life to earth) is that their life would have had to originate somewhere as well. I know your theory doesn't say 'alien' in the sense of little green men, but depending on the definitions, my remarks may still be relevant.

Like the whole concept of God is that he's without beginning and end; To Him time would be like a mobius band. But if this isn't part of the definition, then they would have to have originated somewhere as well...and then you basically have this proposed endless cycle, where aliens brought life to other aliens...and they themselves received life from other aliens.

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

Here is my post from the Capital Punishment Topic:

If your best challenge to Christianity is your own misinterpretation of the Holy Trinity, then you're going to have a bit of a tough time here. There are some people on this board who seemingly know the bible inside-out and backwards (not me).

Before I begin, I'd like to note that I'm really not posing a religious argument at all in this post...it might seem that way, since I'm going to knock on atheists for a little while. But my logic actually lies in a non-religious context.

The problem with many atheists (note that, like you, I'm not saying all) is that they have that exact attitude:

"They don't see what they want to."

They expect first and foremost, scientific proof of God...if I had a nickel for everytime I heard or read "Give me proof of God, and I'll believe." The answer is, no, given proof of God you will NOT believe...you will know. Besides, here's a very simple logical proof that there is no scientific proof of God:

Furthermore, some atheists feel that because God doesn't fit their fast and pleasurable lifestyle, they've no need for Him, and/or He can't exist. Again I've heard all too often "God can't be real, sex feels good and according to the Bible, pre-marital sex is a sin."

Now for the non-religious punchline:

In general, people seem to have trouble grasping the idea that they're not the centre of the universe...I mean before Copernicus, even science believed we were. I guess it's just in human nature to feel that since we witness our own consciousness (and no one else's), that our consciousness is unique.

Hofstadter writes about the concept of a "Strange Loop," one which is evident in say, Escher's artwork. It has seemingly no beginning, and no end, but there are definite 'levels.' No matter what level we are on, we can proceed both, up and down...but in these Strange Loop situations, we are essentially stuck, not knowing where we are.

Math: In a math sense, this is like the notion of a set, a superset and a subset. Let's say I have the letter A, and I'm going to consider it as a collection of items; I would write this as the set of A, or {A}. Now, what if I consider this 'set of A' itself as an object? Then I have a set, containing "the set of A" written { {A} }. I can repeat this as many times as I'd like,

{ { ... { A } ... } }

Each time I do so, I go up one proposed 'level.' If instead of objects and sets, I try to think of what are called Formal Systems, which are basically sets of rules we use to prove things in Mathematical Logic, then we can 'go up a level' by adding in a new rule. But of course, proceeding from one level to the next can introduce contradictions, or inconsistencies. For example:

If my only Axiom (rule) is that 2 + 2 = 4, that's fine (though it doesn't tell us a whole lot). However, if I 'go up' a level, by adding in the Axiom that 2 + 2 = 5, then I have some problems here...I have what's called an Inconsistent System. Kurt Godel proved that only an Inconsistent System can imply its own 'Completeness' (ie. that it models everything). So nothing is consistent and provably complete.

English: I prefer saying everything in math as it's more precise, so it's just a habit. If that stuff went over your head, here's the 'english' version; We've all heard:

This statement is False.

This is a "Strange Loop." One second the statement is true, the next it's false. This is 'level-one.' To proceed to level two, consider this system:

The next statement is False
The prior statement is True.

This again, has no definite truth value and instead sort of flickers back and forth.


So ok...there are levels, Strange Loops, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Why is this relevant? The point I'm trying to make is that life is full of these levels. It's like the distinction between People and computers; (actually, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is strongly in favour of the hypothesis that we can never make a computer that can create as a human being does; It will always require creativity, ingenuity). So if this is the case, what's stopping there from being another level above us? Be it one that made us, one that we will become, or some just plain higher life forms out there? And then a level above that? (Of course if you believe in God and everything associated with God, then God is 'the infinity.' The stopping point, where there is no higher level. God being the top level is an axiom, assuming He exists)

The mathematical way of dealing with these strange loops was to attempt to rigorously remove 'paradoxes' from math (See ZFC - Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory). But the way that the typical person deals with this, is by placing themselves on a pedestal, methaporically putting their fingers in their own ears and yelling at the tops of their lungs. Whether there is God or not, I at least strive to humble myself and acknowledge my own shortcomings. (Mortality, Mental Capacity, etc. etc.)

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

Now in response to the earlier remark:

Xadimurti tried to demean God with a satirical look at the Judgment Day proposed in some religions. If in his own mind this makes perfect sense, then it makes perfect sense...but he is doing precisely what I stated above...namely, assuming your interpretation/experience of the universe is the 'Gospel-Truth.' (pun intended)

I would assume, God doesn't want human beings killing because we have flawed intelligence. We are human beings and don't know all as He is believed to. (If you assume God/Judgment Day/etc exists, then you assume that God is omniscient) Like Science, our knowledge is based on experience, vision...God does not have this limitation.

That's why, assuming God exists, He doesn't want us to kill. It's to avoid 'unfair play' so to speak...that's my best guess anyway...but then, what do I know, I'm only human (by my own logic!).

 

I only mentioned that as a tangent in relation to the story of Eden. I didn't mean it to start a discussion. Haha.

 

Since this is a religion thread, I though I might as well put this:

And here is an answer to that question, believe it if you want.

 

Okay mike, i like the way you talked with your reply to the Capital punishment thread. However you must know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the entire bible. Here's why this is. Over the years of christ and the times before him, people have been keeping careful track of every thing that has happened. At this time i believe the bible was in its TRUE form, no edits, only adds. However once it was completed someone would look at it and maybe say, "Huh, this can't be right," and changes something. Over time valuable information is lost and were stuck with something with the same MESSAGE, but not with the same history as the author saw and wrote about. Changed.
As for this story of eden im hearing about, thats sounding like Atlantis, a race of humans above and beyond others of there time. In other words, site your source please =).

 

^He need not post a citation for an 'interesting idea.' That's all he's claiming it to be; There's no reason someone else's words are any more worthwhile than his own.



Your point about the bible is definitely true. Personally, I think the translation issue (ie. Hebrew + Greek => English) is the worst part; Some claim God would not let His book be tainted...but I don't see how this is possible in a translation. Personal biases are at the heart of the matter. As you're saying, the bible seemingly presents an idea, not fact...or does it? ( ;

Maybe God planned for all the 'mess-ups' and what we're left with is His finished product. I don't believe this to be the case, but I can't say with definite certainty that this is not precisely how God envisioned the bible (namely, having so many translations/versions). Maybe it is.

 

If you study things about God and history and look at it not fom a scientific point of view but from a supernatural point of veiw, plus try to think like God and connect history together then you will slowly start to understand that God is real and that the relationship between God and man is not one of master and servant but of Father and child. I will explain my understanding of God and things about the christian faith in a future thread. Plus if anyone needs help accepting Christ as your lord and savior then please PM me.

 

lol. religion

I study such ancient scriptures as a more physical matter than spiritual. The spirits of the realm are to far superior to the realm of matter, they wouldn't waste there time here. Thats why ghosts get tricky when it comes to my beliefs. I just don't know where they'd fit in my theories. But science isn't the way to look at the ancient world or god good comings and goings, no. Science denies there existence, that would make looking at religious scriptures in a scientific way hypocritical.
I believe in God. I also strongly believe in devils, the evil ones whom control the material realm. Thats why the Bible calls Satan the King of the world. But Jesus is something of a puzzle. When one knows enough of everything, he call fully understand it all. Once you've heard what everyone wants you to here, then you can begin to connect the puzzle pieces. Most people view the puzzle of life as boring, or start to put it together, but then stop. Others spend life times trying to find that last puzzle piece. As many of you are putting your together, Mine is nearally finished. Demon of Darkness, I'd like to talk to you about Jesus some time. Really, I want to see if you know anything about the Morning Star....really.
Heres a video on youtube that Youtube is trying to bann because it contains to much puzzle pieces for the common mind.
Heres the first part, the others'll be on the side, so just click the links.YouTube - Zeitgeist: The Movie - Full, Final version
enjoy!

 

No one, not even Einstein or any other great thinker, (pick your favourite) could ever comprehend God, the afterlife, why we're here, or any metaphysical question. That's by mere definition of what God is (as you said, "Satan rules the material realm" which implies that God, and any other of these questions, lie outside of this realm as Satan has no dominion over them).

That means you, and your puzzle (as well as my form of it) are, and always will be either incomplete, or incorrect (or both).

In a strictly logical/mathematical context, every formal system (including systems of reasoning) is either inconsistent or incomplete (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).

If you assume your beliefs are correct, one can very mathematically, almost algorithmically, construct a contradiction in your beliefs (and it all begins with the statement that your beliefs are correct). That's the idea behind Godel's proof of his famous theorem (there are 2 infact).

But in other words, God and being incomprehensible aside, if your system of beliefs is consistent (ie. it has no inherent contradictions) you can never prove that it's complete (ie. you know the whole truth)...so there is always that uncertainty.


And Zeitgeist is a walking contradiction...for this very reason, among others.

 

I can. Others can to, it takes logic to comprehend the truth. Plus Einstein isn't that smart, Tesla is smarter than him. Others were to.

 

I did say to pick your favourite...Tesla can't comprehend it either.

It does indeed take logic to comprehend...however inherent in one's own logic are assumptions. (EVERY system of logic is based on axioms, a.k.a. assumptions)

So by a great theorem in logic (as I mentioned, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), your belief system is either incomplete, or inconsistent. It doesn't even fully adhere to the laws presented in our reality, how could you possibly hope it adheres to those in a higher reality?


Take for instance, the proof that there's no proof of God...very very simple logic:

Case 1: God does not exist;
Then there is no proof, as there is no truth in God.

Case 2: God does exist;
Then if a proof of God exists, then man can manipulate God (ie. God/miracles/whatever can be repeated and evaluated)...and thus God is not supernatural as man has dominion over Him. This is contradicting the fact that we're assuming God exists.

Thus there is no proof of God.


Thus your belief in God or an afterlife is an assumption, or Axiom if you will, as it is unprovable...so your beliefs are either inconsistent or incomplete, and thus you haven't 'pieced together the whole puzzle.'

In other words, the best one can hope for is to either 'fall short of the whole truth' and not know the whole story...or be wrong.

For instance, if I were to say "God is real." and that were my only belief, then if God is real, I'm correct...however there is certainly more to know (ie. my beliefs are Incomplete), like perhaps, if/where heaven lies, if/where hell lies, etc. The second I start asking these questions, I have the possibility of being wrong (I may be Inconsistent)...and the second I throw in the fact that I assume I'm correct, it's game over (I'm definitely Inconsistent)...Godel kicks in and we're contradicting ourselves.

 

Your F'ing smart my friend. U used complete logic and a little bit of elbow greese to come to your conclusions, I like your style. But not everything can be used through logic, 90% of the time it is absolute, but when dealing with things such as God's existence, things we can't neccesarilly see with our eyes must be found to exist "outside our realm".

Tesla is my favorite....^_^

You never know, he did find some crazy stuff according to some "conspiracy theories", Anti-Gravity Matter, the 'peace-ray', and his "obsesive compulsive dissorder" with the number 3. Such things are what truth seekers seek once they know the complete truth, or at least as much truth this realm has to offer. Tesla was a great man, and possibly one of the smartest to ever live in my opinion.

Most logic is based on "common knowledge" and assumptions, but not all beliefs come from logic. Logic is a good tool to use in such things as debates, and like I said, most of the time smarter people have a belief system based more on logic than the common man. But such things as God can't have logic applied to them. Sight is often used in logic, but if you see something with your mind your often thought crazy, or you'd ignore it completely and not think it was anything in peticular. But, if you see something with your heart, if you feel something in your soul that tells you there is a god, then you have enough "proof" for yourself. If someone doesn't feel god is "real", or he doesn't exist and they need "evidence", then they haven't had that feeling yet. Most people never really have that feeling in many lifetimes, but those whom are lucky will truly get that feeling. So, you see, you can not apply logic to emotions, because emotions are in and of themselves a deity of mystery.

your logic statements only apply to logic, and as I've stated, logic isn't what most people use in moral belief systems 100%. Logic is absolute, thats why its a great tool, and your bringing up good points about how theories based on logic can only take you so far, but thats my point. To find the rest, you must use a different method.

lol, apply logic to religion in general. The beliefs and mythologies, not the unified theory of "god's existence", and in those mythologies you will find the truth of why earth exists, or rather "The heart (re-arange the letters of earth, you get heart) of the universe." The puzzle is never complete for anyone until they die. In death, you see god, and then return to another vessel on earth. Its a complicated system of karma and reincarnation that our souls live through in punishment of a choice we once made as spirits. Thats the system of the afterlife, I've got that much figured out. There is many more puzzle pieces, but like I said, no mortals puzzle can be complete until after death in the realm of matter. And that applies to only those who've puzzled all they could in this world. Some of them don't even get that last piece. So, in conclusion, we are all only sinful men and women, so not all of us can really solve every answer, but some can. Some sinners find the light in the cave of the underworld, and they reach for it. Once you find the light, you'll wanna dig yourself out of that cave. This process is when you have the puzzle pieces in your hands, and start to connect them.

Only a "quitter" thinks like that. As to where heaven and hell are, why they are the two realms of course. Paradise is the spirit realm, and hell is the realm of matter. I asked myself those questions, I studied books, religion, many other works of ancient scriptures and such and came to the conclusion of the truth using logic. I asked the questions, and i wasn't inconsistent. I then "assumed I was correct", but I was. And I found puzzle pieces, what more could i get out of asking simple questions, using logic and a little elbow greese to come to concluding truthful answers? Nothing more.

 

O'k God cannot be proved by science becase science can only prove things in our realm. But i'm talking about a relationship with God. I can't explain in a scientific term because the spirit is not a thing that can be explained by science. It's hard to explain it in a short term but i'll make a more detailed thread explaining what a relationship with God is like. Trust me my relationship with God is explained unlike how most christians would explain it.

 

@Mythril_Roxas: You didn't quite see the main idea in my post, so I'll try to tone down on some of the mumbo jumbo and put a more philosophical twist on it.

The short philosophical answer is: If God exists, then God gave us the gift of human reasoning. Should we then ignore this gift in the search for Him? Or should we utilize it?

Basically the idea is similar to what you've said: Human logic is insufficient to comprehend God. The theorem I've cited, Godel's theorem has two implications (which I won't go into so much detail about):

1) We cannot 'build' other human beings capable of being adaptive and responsive to their environment...at least not without being unable to grasp what's going on. (Not with a 'computer-like' or programming method)
2) It brings up an inherent flaw in our sense of reasoning...The proof in some sense is deeper than the theorem (and usually requires about 4 months to go through for the first time in a university course), Godel was a brilliant man. He has effectively shown that we can 'never' rectify this error in our reasoning, no matter how much more we learn about math/logic.

So this leaves us to wonder: what else can we not do/not comprehend?

You'd be surprised how good a tool like logic is for modelling beliefs. Infact, the 'axioms' part is pretty solid. We can always label, or pin down what our assumptions are. These are quite literally, the things that defy logic/can't be proven. I have a theory I'm trying to work with (although it seems rather nontrivial, yet clear) that every belief system can be axiomatized. It seems clear, just nail down your assumptions / beliefs and call them axioms. Your may or may not already have an inconsistent system just based on axioms, some inherent contradiction:

Kind of a stupid math example is if I take as an axiom 2 + 2 = 4, and another with 5 - 2 = 2, then I have a contradiction...because by the 2nd axiom 2 + 2 must equal 5, but my first axiom says it's 4 (which is an inconsistency/contradiction).

This is where logic is sound, and how we can use logic to analyze our belief systems (and this is where the contradiction lies should one assume their beliefs are correct, as an axiom). If we go beyond this, then as you've said, this is a problem...however I haven't gone above and beyond this point yet.

The thing we are missing/can't capture are the 'rules of inference.' How do we make decisions in our system? Like for instance, suppose "God exists" is our axiom. What comes next? What do we actually 'believe' about God? This is the personal, cognitive element that comes into play.

The problem is a human is adaptive, while a computer program is not....but whatever the formal system, it cannot assume its own truth. We cannot 'know' we are right for certain...because then it would be an Axiom and Godel would apply...so the best we have is to believe we are correct, but acknowledge that we may fall short of the truth.

This is why I don't think it's for quitters: it's for the humble. I don't consider myself (or other human being) to be on the same level of intellect that He is (or anywhere close, allowing them to perceive what He is, or where He is, etc). I've demonstrated why I have every reason to believe we're inferior by using "This sentence is false."

And now the part I've deliberately left for the end: gut feelings/impulses, or feeling things in your heart. Don't worry, I get these too so I know exactly what you're talking about...the sort of uplifted feeling you get when you think about something you know in your heart is true. (Ironically, I feel like my 'axiomatization' is a big breakthrough, haha)

However, we need to make 2 assumptions to ensure our gut feelings are what they are:

1) We exist (seems trivial, but important! And chances are you've already assumed this)
2) We're in sound health (ie. not crazy)

It's probably pretty obvious why we need those, so I won't explain. But essentially what it comes down to is a differing type of belief.

If your gut tells you something about God or heaven, or whatever it may be, then yes I can't argue that it is indeed the truth...however, I can argue that now you have a belief in the fact that this is a sign from God, and not something else like a crush on a girl or even just gas (sorry, I had to make that joke).

Take home point is that the belief, or axiom aspect shifts from being about God to being about oneself...I hope I've explained enough, I'm running a bit late so I had to cut it short.

Now about myself:

Even though I believe I'll never know exactly who God is in this life, I still aim to get as close as I can. God is 'magnetic' in some sense.

I try to shy away from details like whether or not Christ lived because they don't ultimately affect my personal relationship with God (personally I believe in Jesus, the Trinity etc. but mostly because I'd like to believe God is that nice, not because I have any particular reason to believe someone walked the earth 2000 years ago). This is where I differ from many Christians.

The reason I differ is because of the following (yes indeed) logic:

If God made human beings with such a distinct selection process, one belief, one geographical area, etc. then it's impossible for some to get to heaven. Thus since God created people outside of this one geographical area, then God made people with the knowledge that they are predestined for Hell...doesn't this imply that God's sinning?

I know some people will argue otherwise...but the core of my beliefs is that God exists and is perfect. It seems to me that if God could create everyone so that everyone goes to heaven (which He certainly could have, He can do anything) then why is creation of only a select few going to heaven sufficient? It's an imperfection...

That's my reasoning (it may look like I don't believe in a Hell, but it's more like I don't believe in a permanent Hell).



If you like kooky logic/mathy theories, ask away...I've got like 100 of em. Including why if we have any hope of knowing science is correct, then God (or at least some supernatural power) must exist, and another one about how God may have infact created everyone for heaven (eventually).

Both have kind of a math-ish flavour to them.

 

Mike you are wrong about one thing. God did not originaly make man seperate from himself. He and man were connected until Man sinned and this sin caused a seperation. If God is perfect and sin is imperfect then when man sinned they became imperfect. Therefore they cannot be with God in his perfect heaven. Thats where Jesus comes in. Jesus died to wash our sins away, If we accept forgiveness our sin will be destroyed and thus Jesus reconnects us with God and we once again become perfect. So only those who refuse Jesus, those who refuse forgiveness will be sent to hell. It's not God's fault people go to heaven, it's the induviduals fault. If they refuse to accept christ and get forgiveness then how can God let a lost sinner enter heaven. Sin would ruin a perfect heaven and so we must seek forgiveness to enter heaven. I'll explain this in much greater detail in my Relationship with God thread.