The

Yes I believe in the G-d of the Bible. I don't know how I would ever go about proving it. The closest I can go is by feeling. I just feel right about my faith. When I pray I can almost feel God's presence. When I'm depressed God acts as the great comforter. I just don't see how I could not believe in God. Without him the world would seem so...trite.

 

Explain the anti-Omniscient part.

 

keiran, may I ask if you were raised in a very faith based family atmosphere or was this something you turned to through your own accord?

 

semi-faithful family. The whole fundamentalist craze sweeping through my church three years ago caused me to go temporarily awol on faith though. Now I'm back to believing, but a little more cynical than before (and a lot less fundamentalist).

So I guess I was raised in faith, but I'm kind of beyond the "following of my parent's faith" though.

 

Have you read Joseph Campbell?

 

Addendum: I'm not saying that quantum physics disproves the existence of God. I'm just saying that the idea of God as an omnipotent, omniscient being is not all it's cracked up to be.

Most of the scientists from the Renaissance to present whose theories eventually led up to what we have here today were God-believing, God-fearing men and women. Stephen Hawking is the best contemporary example.

A supernatural being existing outside of the confines of our universe's dimensions may still exist. It is the concept of fate that is falling, and the concept of unlimited omniscience.

A syllogism some of you may have seen before:

1. If God is omniscient, He can see everything, including the future, and thus fate exists.

2. If God is omnipotent, His actions are unrestricted; thus, He may defy fate.

3. Therefore, God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

This does not disprove the existence of a supreme deity, a Creator. It denies the existence of a perfect God. In fact, there is no proof against omnipotence! There is merely strong evidence against omniscience.

 

That is why I believe in an omnipotent God with omniscience only of the moment.

 

nope, sorry. Should I be afraid of him?

 

Now, after archaeological research into these ancient civilisations, we find that they were quite different but one thing was common. A very important thing. They ALL worshiped some sort of supreme being.

Most did, but all? Are you sure? I thought there were several civilizations out of China and Mongolia that didn't, centuries before Christ. I know the Huns didn't, but that may have been more a personal thing after dealing with religious factions in the area.


Regardless, the fact is they all came up with very different and unique interpretations of a 'spiritual ether-world'. Some had multiple deities, others had one. Still others had different concepts from djinn and efreet to sacrificial requirements for appeasement. Even if so many civilizations had the idea of worshipping a supernatural being or beings, it's not the least bit convincing when you take into account the vast differences between them. It's just too easy to chalk that aspect up to the fact that people had alot of time to think and over-active imaginations.

 

Every star wars fan should know him. He was an inspiration to George Lucas to create a modern myth. He was the pre-eminent specialist in mythology this world has ever known. He filmed a series of discussions with Bill Moyers at Skywalker Ranch. Fascinating, and very eye opening stuff. Check him out at your earliest convenience.

 

"That is why I believe in an omnipotent God with omniscience only of the moment."

But by Heisenberg, there is no omniscience of the moment. The formulation of any physical observation results in a minute, yet calculable disruption in the target being observed. Therefore, instantaneous observation is impossible.

 

I'm not hugely worried with what science has to theorize about in this case. I am for evolution as one of God's tools, but momentary omniscience is how I'm thinking right now.

 

The Parrot has it right. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal expressly states that when you observe, you have automatically changed what you are observing, IN THAT MOMENT.

 

I say no. The way I see it, Gods in general were created to explain the unexplainable. With science such became obsolete. The other main use for God is as an absolute. God makes the morals, defines good and bad, and since God is above us, those are binding qualities. Without a God, no man's view of right or wrong would be any better or worse than any other person's. God's existence and laws provide a basis for a workable society. However, these days I think that religion is used more often as an excuse for fighting than as a reason not to. I personally don't believe in God; I believe that every person is shaped by his or her surroundings and experiences, that there is no innate or absolute "good" or "evil." I do believe certain things are right or wrong, but understand that others might feel differently about them.

 

Heiseberg's uncertainty priciple only applies to subatomic particles, does it not?

 

If there were a God, Heisenberg certainly wouldn't apply. God doesn't see by light the way we do, God would just know.

 

God would be above mere laws of physics and those of man. Who is to say we aren't missing some great point? Lots of theories out there, but we can prove w/o a shadow of a doubt, very little.

Going to bed. Be good. Don't muss each other's hair.

Boo!

 

ktwsolo ? Don?t worry. It?s coming all right!

Jediguy ? Don?t mention it. It was the way I was taught and I?ve never forgotten!


jeff 42, The anthropological argument doesn?t go into specifics. That is indeed a way that you could argue against it but a supporter of the viewpoint would say that is doesn?t matter that the supreme beings, that different civilisations worship, are not the same.

A supporter of the Anthropological argument would say that just because those people can conceive of an overall supreme being in the first place, then that is evidence enough for there to be one. In whatever form. Maybe it can have multiple forms?

 

Please excuse me if someone has already brought this up. Though I'm not entirely convinced either way, for a few years now I have been leaning towards the evolution theory, simply on the evidence that some form of evolution did occur. I'm also interested in the big bang theory, though again, I'm not totally convinced. The big question is, in relation to these, how can something come from nothing? The same thing puzzles me in relation to a Supreme Being.

The universe could not have erupted from nothing. Likewise, a Supreme Being could not have appeared from no where, especially in a universe He created...after He came into being.

Sorry for talking circles.

 

And that is exactly why the 'First Cause' argument fails.

 

Anthropological.

Why do different human societies without contact with each other all develop the concept of gods?

This is my take on it: -

Arthur C Clarke summed it up best "Technology so advanced it is indistingushable from magic"

All these early human cultures experienced their natural surroundings, and become reliant on them. They knew they needed rain to make the crops grow, knew that every so often the mountain with the hole at the top would spew out lava, knew that prey animals came past every so often, and had to hunted at that time.

They didn't know causes, they didn't know about meterology and why clouds form, they didn't know plate tectonics and why the volcano erupts, they didn't know about migration of the animals.

They did, however have eyes and were able to look into the night sky, see the stars and see patterns there, shapes of beings that could be the reason why the things they experience happen. Thus the concepts of gods came about, to explain the inexplicable and the things that the early humans couldn't comprehend.

After all, if an alien being arrived now that could change things that were happening over the other side of the planet to where he was, talk to the dolphins and bring the dead back to life, would we call him god?

 

I'm going to be honest and say, I don't know whether or not God exists, but I hope that He does.

 

Heisenberg's uncertainity principle applies to physical beings, in time, measuring sub-atomic particles.
It is impossible for a physical being to measure, or observe something without effecting it. Nor can we shift ourselves outside of Time itself.
None of these conditions hold for a being who is outside of time, not physical, and of a nature no human could even begin to comprehend (if it existed).

About this:


A syllogism some of you may have seen before:

1. If God is omniscient, He can see everything, including the future, and thus fate exists.

I disagree with this. One does not necessarily follow from the other. A common argument is that 'if God knows what we are going to do, there is no free choice'. To me, that is a logical fallacy. Knowing the outcome of someone's choice says nothing about whether or not they had a choice in the first place.
Also, the term 'seeing the future' cannot be applied to God. 'Future' only has a meaning when you exist in Time.


2. If God is omnipotent, His actions are unrestricted; thus, He may defy fate.

This again implies God exists in time. It implies there can be a 'time' when he has not chosen to defy fate, and a 'time' when he has chosen to defy fate. Again, it applies human notions to a god.

imzadi - I accept evolution and the Big Bang as valuable scientific theories. I also believe in God.
People often want to know where God came from. I think it's because we are so stuck in our human outlook on things - we can't understand the idea of something existing in a state where this is no before and after.
Still, some belief systems believe God is the physical universe.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, Kitt327

I agree, we don't have that kind of understanding (or at least I don't ). The only other thing to go on is belief, either in a supreme being, or scientific theories. I respect people who believe in a Supreme Being, simply because of the level of faith they have.

 

"Knowing the outcome of someone's choice says nothing about whether or not they had a choice in the first place."

Please explain.

If the outcome of the choice is pre-observable, then how is it a choice?