The Idea Of God - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Idea Of God (3510 Views)
Is God Man-made? Did Man Create The Idea Of God? / See How This Equation And Analogy Prove The Idea Of The Trinity Wrong / Why The Idea of God Is A Fraud (2) (3) (4)
| The Idea Of God by Nobody: 2:20pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
The idea that the universe is created is plausible and more believable than the the idea that it is not. Score one for the creationists. Then the argument starts from here --- who created the universe? On that there are a lot of possibilities but the one that holds sway is that of a single creator who is male. Therein lies the crux of the matter, why do people think the universe originated from a single entity and that he is masculine and not feminine? Though this idea begs for evidence, it is also very believable if it only stayed at that. But then it is stretched further and this creator is given attributes that are basically made up. Some say he has a son who came to the earth to save us from the wrath of his father, others disagree. Some contend that he has a book that contains his thoughts though not everyone that believes in this God agree on which book is the right one since there are different versions. It is still not proven that the creator of the universe is a single entity, but the question is - Taking for granted that the universe originated from a single entity, which religion that claims to be right one to knowledge of the creator is actually the right one? If it can be found in a book, what makes such book the right one against other books? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by KAG: 2:30pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
phxc: Why? Why is the former more plausible than the former? Just curious, really. Bear in mind, also, that many things that were deemed plausible and more believable based on gut instict, etc, have been shown to be wrong. Then the argument starts from here --- who created the universe? Or what, if anything, caused the universe? No? On that there are a lot of possibilities but the one that holds sway is that of a single creator who is male. Therein lies the crux of the matter, why do people think the universe originated from a single entity and that he is masculine and not feminine? Strictly paternalistic societies creating their gods in their images? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Nobody: 2:40pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Why? Why is the former more plausible than the former? Just curious, really. Bear in mind, also, that many things that were deemed plausible and more believable based on gut instict, etc, have been shown to be wrong. Well I'm not saying that the universe being created is right since no one really knows. The universe created is only an assumption, a more believable assumption the the idea that it is not. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 2:45pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
KAG: Because complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities are not known to spring into existence magically, are they? Could you perhaps cite just one such thing? . . .and oh no, you dare not return to your virtual particle story please. . . . . Bear in mind, also, that many things that were deemed plausible and more believable based on gut instict, etc, have been shown to be wrong. When a man sees a painting, it is not gut instinct but reason and commonsense that suggest it has a painter, No? The universe is trillions of times more compelling in that regard than any painting, No? Or what, if anything, caused the universe? No? You still have not been able to point to any uncaused material thing, have you? Aside that, for such a lover of science and logic as you posture as, an uncaused universe is patently unscientific and inherently illogical. Absurd, even. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 2:58pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
phxc: A created universe is not only more believable, it is the only rational presumption that can be made. It is beyond absurd to reflect that - - - - the very pith of scientific inquiry is and always has been to seek out the causes of things - - - - only for certain supposed science enthusiasts to begin to suggest that the biggest thing of all - the universe - could be without cause. This is frankly the height of all conceivable absurdity - and I strive in saying so to be, and remain, polite. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by KAG: 3:14pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
phxc: Again, I'm still not clear why you think the former is more believable than the latter. Deep Sight: I've never claimed that "complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities" have sprung into existence magically. That's both your strawman and a red-herring. However, other than the views of athropocentric humans, there's nothing to suggest that the universe has an underlying purpose. Is the strawman your reason for supposing it's more plausible that the universe has/had a creator? . . .and oh no, you dare not return to your virtual particle story please. . . . . It's not a story. It's based on currently available data. When a man sees a painting, it is not gut instinct but reason and commonsense that suggest it has a painter, No? Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else. The universe is trillions of times more compelling in that regard than any painting, No? Why? You still have not been able to point to any uncaused material thing, have you? Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon. Aside that, for such a lover of science and logic as you posture as, an uncaused universe is patently unscientific and inherently illogical. Absurd, even. Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by KAG: 3:16pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Deep Sight: Really? Created by a being? Evidence needed. P.S. Going out to enjoy the Indian Summer and enjoy the company of my better half. I'll try to get back on any comments as soon as time allows. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 3:18pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
@Deepsight: I always enjoy reading your posts. I have noticed that you seem to have an almost dogmatic posture on this issue of first cause and uncaused cause. As I reminded you recently, its just a fancy word one may wish to use to justify an unexplainable subject. When asked what would have been the cause of the first cause, you replied that it is the uncaused cause, with absolute certainty. Doesnt mean anything. You are sounding like churchmen. Also, by clinging tightly to this first cause, you are asuming to be speaking from the position of absolute knowledge. Not so? Dont forget that, so far, we know very very little of how the universe really works. We know that the universe is still expanding.How is that? Its either the first cause is still creating or nothings are still being turned into somethings through mysteries we dont yet understand. Scientific knowledge has advanced even much further in the area of astro physics than most of we ordinary folks could ever imagine. From what I have gathered so far, I can postulate that ,in time to come, 100yrs,200yrs or even 500yrs , we would have known enough about the other laws of the universe, changed our understanding of the broader laws of physics that would allow us to manipulate matter, space, and time as it suites us. In the contemplated eventuality, it just might be possible to create something from nothing or at least demostrate how something can be created from nothing. It may sound very far-fetched, but your mind would boggle if you consider some of the theories being postulated and investigated. The universe might be far far different from our current understanding. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Nobody: 3:46pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Again, I'm still not clear why you think the former is more believable than the latter. Since all artificial things are made, from the human point of view, it follows that by extension, natural objects could also be made. That's what a lot of people believe and that's why the idea that the universe came out of something rather than nothing is believable. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 4:09pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
globexl: And I enjoy the openness of your mind. I have noticed that you seem to have an almost dogmatic posture on this issue of first cause and uncaused cause. Is it dogma to simply reiterate the standard and obvious principle of cause and effect? Are the laws of motion known to physics dogmatic? The initial expansion from which the universe expanded was motion no? Does the break-down of physical laws supposed to occur at that level affect the notion that motion always has a triggering propulsion? Dear friend, these are certainly not dogmatic propositions: it therefore cannot be dogmatic to insist that there remains a causative element, and the nature of any effect can disclose attributes of its cause, the nature of the universe also logically should disclose some attributes of its cause. We know that the universe is still expanding.How is that? Believe me there is no such thing as “nothing” anywhere in existence. It does not exist. Yes, myriad multiverses are exploding into existence every instant of eternity. Scientific knowledge has advanced even much further in the area of astro physics than most of we ordinary folks could ever imagine. Oh, and if we do that (create something from nothing) – would it not be the doing of intelligent beings – i.e – humans? Why then should we imagine that it is different with the universe as we know it? I find it amazing how the very same people who advocate science suddenly turn around to abandon basic scientific principles in a bid to argue the proposition that the universe might be uncaused or uncreated. . . . . . But finally, I say to you again – hear and bear this carefully – there is no such thing as “nothing” anywhere in existence. It does not exist. It may sound very far-fetched, but your mind would boggle if you consider some of the theories being postulated and investigated. The universe might be far far different from our current understanding. I’m open to all that. That does nothing to take away the essential principle of causation, does it, sir? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 4:20pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
KAG: Yes you have: and you have also done worse: such as argue the existence of purposeful beings in a purposeless universe, as well as support the claim that the human eye could, as Dawkins said, (emerge in its first stage), in a a single "lucky" evolutionary step. It's not a story. It's based on currently available data. Your understanding of it has been severally proven to be woeful, friend. Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else. What does a primitive misconception of a solar eclispe have in common with the logical and scientific idea of cause and effect and the idea that motion requires a propelling trigger? Why? Go figure. Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon. I really hope you do not do this for a living. Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago. Precursor. . . .lol. Now, semantics. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 4:22pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
KAG: What do you understand to be a "being"? P.S. Going out to enjoy the Indian Summer and enjoy the company of my better half. I'll try to get back on any comments as soon as time allows. Green with envy. Enjoy India! |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 6:16pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
@ Deepsight: Why would you not consider that in the beginning, mindless and purposeless energy could have just reached a saturation point and the big b.ang was triggered. For example,certain violatile chemicals bow up when they reach a certain temperature or atmospheric threshold. Why must there be an outside intelligent first cause? do you think everything in the universe serves a purpose? Do you think that all the several billion different known species of plants and animals all serve a purpose for their existence, or could they have arisen by random(uncaused) genetic accidents? When cosmic particles ceaselessly interact over tens of billions of years,can you imagine the billions of tiny changes and random arrangements that ensue? Over more time, such tiny changes may show a pattern that might, in our limited vision, seem like design and purpose. What we see an purpose driven design might just be one of the billions of minute changes that occur in the grander scheme of cosmic interactions. Our limited lifespan and scope does not allow us to see the universe in its full form. Our sun takes 250 million yrs to achieve its orbit around our galaxy system. Can you imagine all the changes our solar system can go through in that period of time? To say hold firm in the belief that design and purpose is inherent in the universe pre-supposes that there is uniformity in the universe, and ignores the obvious fact that the universe is actually choatic, just as it should.It is the inherent purposeless chaos that gives rise the complexity and diversity of both the universe and to life on earth as we know it. What we see as symmetry and order might just be sensory illusons. How do you explain the fact that one of the moons of mars orbits in retrograde orbit, against what is normaly obtained with other moons? is there a purpose and design for that anomaly? One can postulate or theorize that the universe has a design, designer and a purpose. That is normal.But to hold that view with the certainty that you do,is , in my view, dogmatic indeed. The idea that if something exists, it must have a purpose and a designer is old stale. For example, a thunderstorm can start a whole chain of events that might at the end , seem purposeful by either an angry diety or a benevolent diety depending on its short and long term effects. Now, does a thunderstorm have to be ignited by an intelligent being? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Nobody: 6:23pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
/-No Creator   Person / \__creator----------masculine---------has a son----------------wants to be worshiped ------- to bring judgment on humans  | \ | | \ | | \ |___does not want to be worshiped | \ | \_________does not have a son feminine |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 6:29pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
@Deepsight: It is not enough for you to say that everythign has an origin. Ok. Everything started somewhere and somehow. That is not disputable( i hope i'm not cotradicting myself). But you cannot blame it on a first cause and then full stop. Its not enough. You have to define and give attributes to the first cause. If you feel or intuit the first cause, that is where it should stop. You cannot use it as a basis for a strong argument if you cannot define it with attributes. Much of what you say reflect my own inner thoughts as well, but I put them in proper perspective because they are just thoughts. I cannot make a case for them. This takes me back to what I always say: God resides in the human mind |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 6:58pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
globexl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
|
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 7:19pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
dna
|
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 7:24pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
I am sorry to answer you with links and pictures, but my conviction is that people who discountenance intelligent design simply have yet to grasp the nature and design of the biological elements of conscious life. It's that simple. No one could have a thorough understanding of the working of the biological elements of conscious creatures and deny intelligent design. No one. Those that claim they do, factually do not. Its that simple. But worst of all, such people do not have a grasp of the import of sentience in a being. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 7:24pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
@ Deepsight: I prefer your eloquence than articles and definitions from wiki. My discourse is with you and not wiki. Some insect species have lifespans of a few days and some microscopic organisms live just a few hrs. If these species could think,I' m quite sure they would see their lives as purposeful and grand. Is it not possible that our lives and indeed our universe, could just reperesent a microsecond in yet another endless cycle of a grander pursposeless universe driven on its own ,without a designer or purpose ? Think about it. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 7:31pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Really wonder if this will strike a chord with anybody. . . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 7:34pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
globexl: Why do you insist it must be purposeless. Is that not similarly dogmatic? Is it not strange to see biological elements with functionalities that work for purposes and then insist that it must be all purposeless? I am rather tired this evening, no offense mate. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 7:40pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
I do not deny intelligent design with absolute certainty. My position is that intelligent design does not address any fundamental questions in any real sense. That's why I think its a cop out. Also, intelligent design is accepted from a purely human perspective. What we see as complex may turn out to be biological expressions of simple mathematical formulaes embedded in laws of nature. Yo never take into consideration the effect of 4.7 billion years of ceaseless interactions and mutatons. Consigning it to an unknowable designer is lazy and is a negation of our responsibilty to seek and investigate.Its the same mindset that men or yesterday used to creat the thousands of deities worshipped throughout the ages. I am more interested in probing intelligent design and the designer rather just accepting it as an article of faith. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by globexl: 7:45pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
I am not insisting that is must be purposeless. No. I am just asking why PUROSE must be a precondition for anything to exist. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by jayriginal: 7:54pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
@Deep Sight, you remember our discussion a little while back. I opined that you would do well to rid yourself of certain assumptions. These do nought but give a religious/dogmatic zeal to your "spiritual philosophy" as I would like to call it. We have an interesting discussion going on and I will be happy if you can take out some time to respond to my questions on the thread (the improbability of God). In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God". |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Daiquiri: 8:48pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
KAG: Deep Sight: [img width=60 height=70]http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/scratch-head02.gif[/img] Enjoy India? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Enigma(m): 8:52pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
^^^ I thought it was funny too; some misunderstanding I guess. PS I too enjoyed the Indian summer today. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 9:10pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
globexl: That intelligent design is obvious, should do nothing to restrain continuing scientific inquiry. I have made this point before. A hoarde of scientists are theists, and this fact does nothing to prevent their continuous research into things. So there is simply no question of a cop out of any nature. Also, intelligent design is accepted from a purely human perspective. What we see as complex may turn out to be biological expressions of simple mathematical formulaes embedded in laws of nature. Where did the formulas originate. Where did "nature" originate? These are the questions. Yo never take into consideration the effect of 4.7 billion years of ceaseless interactions and mutatons. True thinking should commence with the question: how did the box (universe) and the agents within the box (matter and energy), which are the subject of the interactions you mention, originate in the first place. That is the genuine riddle. It is pointless, and does not address any inquiry, to leap over and above this first and cardinal question only to begin to make postulations about already existing matter and energy. How did that matter and energy arise? That is the real question. It is odd that most people leap over this question as regards matter and energy, whereas they are quick to pose the same question once a first cause is mooted. Consigning it to an unknowable designer is lazy and is a negation of our responsibilty to seek and investigate. Its the same mindset that men or yesterday used to creat the thousands of deities worshipped throughout the ages. Addressed already. This is not the case. I am more interested in probing intelligent design and the designer rather just accepting it as an article of faith. I am certain i have not asked you to accept it as an article of faith. Let us by all means probe it: we must probe everything. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 9:15pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Daiquiri: Yes na, that temperature is indian na. Can't say i have the same luxury. |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Daiquiri: 9:22pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Deep Sight: SMH. Give it a rest |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Daiquiri: 9:23pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Enigma: Green with envy of 28°? When where he is, is hotter than that Enjoy India! That really takes the biscuit. Upon all the high & mighty literary, it just shows and showed up |
| Re: The Idea Of God by DeepSight(m): 9:40pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
^ if only you know what i have to endure, you might just get it. Any on-topic comments? |
| Re: The Idea Of God by Daiquiri: 9:54pm On Sep 28, 2011 |
Deep Sight: For the scalp tin box? |
What Language Will We Speak In Heaven / How Christians Pray / Female Muslim *with Hijab* Receives Nobel Peace Prize For 2011
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 120 |