What purpose does God Serve?

[vincubus]

you wish to claim those things to have been created by your god? fine.....then prove your allegation. without using the bible, but using stand alone, objective, universally recognized proof.

Im not claiming anything. Im pointing out the fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind the original post. It's circular reasoning. God is useless because we can do things on our own. We can do things on our own because God is useless.

As for proving anything, you need to tell me, what exactly is provable? There is practically nothing provable in this entire universe. Prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't. Sure chances are it's going to rise, but just because it's happened everyday in the last billion years doesnt mean it's going to happen tomorrow. It can't be proved. Almost nothing can be provide.

Now if you want to examine evidence, that's a completely different story. There is plenty of evidence for God. You may not find it credible, but that doesnt mean the evidence is not there. I've heard the whispers of the Holy Spirit. I've felt the power of God. My experience is evidence as much as any other witnesses testimony is evidence. You may not find the evidence credible. But it's evidence nonetheless. And that is the main problem. There is no universal standard for credibility. What's credible to one person isn't to another. Which is exactly why it's foolish to simply take someones word for it instead of thinking it out yourself and going to God to learn from Him. Unfortunately, few people actually put in the effort to do this.

You want evidence God created your brain? look at your brain. Look at the complexity behind it. look at you hand and the complex design it takes just to move your fingers back and forth. Look at all the internal regulatory systems of your body. All acting just right so you can survive and move and do things.

I understand you think yourself intelligent, wiser, and superior to those who believe. Seems to me though that there are alot of your premises you dont question. You learn by questioning premises. If you cant see your premises or recognize them, then you are very limited in what you can learn.

here is an example of circular reasoning.

as a child you hear ppl use the word "god". as you grow older, you come to understand roughly, what they mean by "god", and as a part of the dominant reality scheme, you come to accept its existence. then you find evidence of to "prove" god.

that is what you have done. yoiu have convinced yourself that "he" exists. it is interesting that only in churches that believe in speaking in tongues and being slain by the spirit does such things manifest. belief creates existence creates evidence.

 

[Sonny G]

There is practically nothing provable in this entire universe. Prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't.

Avatar, you can't because the sun doesn't rise, you idiot, it's the earth that's rotating, and we know how fast the earth rotates so we know that in 24 hours, the sun will appear back at the same spot as yesterday at the same time. So it's scientifically provable. Unlike the book of mormons.

I've heard the whispers of the Holy Spirit. So YOU're the one he told to shoot John Lennon when you had a clear shot at Yoko?

My experience is evidence as much as any other witnesses testimony is evidence So please tell us what happened.

 

[Anguille]

But there will be one in the last days. In fact, it may be sooner than many think.

I scared.

 

[The Illusion]

God serves as an excuse for people - not a bad thing all the time, but it does. People need a reason to not do wrong and to do right.. God is their purpose. People need a reason to do good, and God is that purpose.

Do you think if people didnt believe in God that they would do wrong and not right?

Jamie

 

[Avatar4321]

But there will be one in the last days. In fact, it may be sooner than many think.

I scared.

Why are you scared? Why would anyone be scared of what's to come? The establishment of Zion is a beautiful experience.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is practically nothing provable in this entire universe. Prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't.

Avatar, you can't because the sun doesn't rise, you idiot, it's the earth that's rotating, and we know how fast the earth rotates so we know that in 24 hours, the sun will appear back at the same spot as yesterday at the same time. So it's scientifically provable. Unlike the book of mormons.

You seem to be making a semantic argument. It's obvious that the earth is rotating. We still call the point the sun comes up over the horizon sun rise. We still call the point where the sun descends below the horizon sun set. So you are calling me an idiot for using common and accepted terminology.

Yet, the sun doesnt appear back in the same spot everyday at the same time. If it did there wouldnt be a new time for sun set and sun rise each day. So no, its not scientifically provable that it will happen in 24 hours. You also seem to be unaware that the earth rotates faster than 24 hours. It's why we have leap years every 4 years.

But you've still missed my point completely. Just because something has happened the same way for billions of years the same way, doesnt guarentee that it will happen tomorrow the same way. There is no guarentee that the earth will turn on its axis at the same rate of speed. There is no guarentee that the earth wont reverse its axis or shift the axis completely. It's not unheard of in the universe. Those consequences are not pleasant to the planets atmosphere though.

So science, cannot prove that the sun will rise at a certain time, or at all, tomorrow. It provides a history of evidence in which we can infer that it will, but until tomorrow comes around, nothing is proved.

I've heard the whispers of the Holy Spirit. So YOU're the one he told to shoot John Lennon when you had a clear shot at Yoko?

Id ask what on earth you are talking about, but since you've already been banned, this is probably one of those mysteries we will never know.

My experience is evidence as much as any other witnesses testimony is evidence So please tell us what happened.

I have. You just mocked it.

 

[tigerbob]

The sooner you all get taken to jesus, the better. Especially you avatar, you're seem completely deluded that everyone isn't just laughing at you. I know I am.

You're not "everyone" Mimi.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're not "everyone" Mimi.

Actually, considering he is probably the same guy that gets banned every other day and comes back with a new screen name, maybe he thinks he is everyone. He is Legion at least.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is practically nothing provable in this entire universe. Prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't.

The "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God; therefore He doesn't exist" argument is the favorite among nonbelievers on every one of these internet boards it seems.

It is always fascinating to me, however, that the same people never seem to raise an eyebrow when 'settled' science has proved to be not so settled after all. They never seem to consider that we have learned more science in the last 100 years than we learned in all previous recorded human history combined. And I would bet a good steak dinner that we now know a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know.

And yet there is no 'scientific proof' for so many things that we take for granted. It is 'settled science' that no life exists on Mars, but how will we know until we have an opportunity to fully explore it? It is 'settled science' that specific planets orbit distant stars in our galaxy based on 'gaps' in the visual fields, and few question it, yet there is no way to know for certain until we can go there or develop telescopes powerful enough to see from here.

You cannot prove to me that you were startled by your shadow this morning nor can I prove to you that humming birds followed me around my yard today. But despite the limited number of witnesses to such events, we do not have difficulty believing them even when we have not experienced them ourselves and even though they cannot be scientifically proved.

Most people on Earth believe in some form of Deity. More than a billion profess a relationship with the JudeoChristian God. But despite such a cloud of witnesses, there are some who seem almost desperate to believe that it is not real.

Why?

 

[Coyote]

Most people on Earth believe in some form of Deity. More than a billion profess a relationship with the JudeoChristian God. But despite such a cloud of witnesses, there are some who seem almost desperate to believe that it is not real.

Why?

Because most people on Earth used to believe it was flat.


That pretty much does it for me when it comes to "most people's" opinion...

 

[Diuretic]

There is practically nothing provable in this entire universe. Prove to me the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't.

The "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God; therefore He doesn't exist" argument is the favorite among nonbelievers on every one of these internet boards it seems.

It is always fascinating to me, however, that the same people never seem to raise an eyebrow when 'settled' science has proved to be not so settled after all. They never seem to consider that we have learned more science in the last 100 years than we learned in all previous recorded human history combined. And I would bet a good steak dinner that we now know a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know.

And yet there is no 'scientific proof' for so many things that we take for granted. It is 'settled science' that no life exists on Mars, but how will we know until we have an opportunity to fully explore it? It is 'settled science' that specific planets orbit distant stars in our galaxy based on 'gaps' in the visual fields, and few question it, yet there is no way to know for certain until we can go there or develop telescopes powerful enough to see from here.

You cannot prove to me that you were startled by your shadow this morning nor can I prove to you that humming birds followed me around my yard today. But despite the limited number of witnesses to such events, we do not have difficulty believing them even when we have not experienced them ourselves and even though they cannot be scientifically proved.

Most people on Earth believe in some form of Deity. More than a billion profess a relationship with the JudeoChristian God. But despite such a cloud of witnesses, there are some who seem almost desperate to believe that it is not real.

Why?

Most people on Earth believe in a form of Deity because they have a brain that is sufficiently developed to allow them to do so Fox. There may be some other primates that have rudimentary religious beliefs but as far as I know the evidence on that is yet to be produced. So for now it appears as if humans, we with the big brains, are the only creatures on this Earth that are able to wonder about our existence and to invent mythologies as explanations.

 

[Intense]

[/COLOR]

A consensus agreement gives order to Science. Conscience allows for acceptable behavior in groups. Both have purpose and place...

A consensus agreement gives order to Science. Conscience allows for acceptable behavior in groups. Both have purpose and place...

Consensus is a collective perspective brought by compromise, be it valid/invalid, justified/unjustified, to what ever level or degree, risking or sacrificing accuracy for universal agreement. Science was around long before consensus.

So, your question was to purpose; Consensus agreement gives order and meaning to science. Suppose you have 1000 scientists working on 1000 theories and when each finishes they tuck them away and work on 1000 more. You argue that this is science but but it has no form, meaning, or application. There is no purpose other than self gratification and if the purpose of science is 1000 self gratified scientists than it is a fairly useless pursuit. To gain purpose it has to be exposed to peer review and only with consensus agreement does it gain purpose. And how have we scarified accuracy? Do you think a plurality of scientists would only accept base 10 mathematics if it were inaccurate? The opposite is true because consensus agreement requires that each use scientific method and critical thinking to examine the theory and agree on the principles. There is no compromise nor sacrifice of accuracy but instead a plurality confirmation that the theory true.

Conscience may allow for acceptable behavior in groups, as one of many functions, yet it is so much more than that. It exists and is recognized in Inalienable Right. It is the sole property of each and every one of us, inside and outside of the group. Conscience is not centered on the group, but the individual. Madison wrote on it in "Memorial and Remonstrance". He borrowed it from John Locke. Thoreau wrote of it, in relation to choosing it, over a misguided majority.

Locke's reference was to Consciousness and was in respect to 'knowing' ones thoughts and actions. It is a intuitive philosophical position with respect to the individual as their own sovereign. It is also based on irrational ism and you should understand that Locke's work largely breached the period between the Dark Ages and the Age of Reason so he was taking irrational beliefs and transcending them to rational philosophical beliefs or absolutes. But argue 'truth' to Consciousness without critical thought and there is no way to know if your choice is true or misguided. You may well have a right to an intuitive belief but it doesn't separate you from the misguided masses.

---to edit and add to this last statement: 'Thou shalt not Kill' is regarded as a moral absolute. From the perspective of the irrational it is an absolute because it is a commandment of God the sovereign. Locke however would view this rationally from the perspective of the individual as their own sovereign where, if, each individual adhered to the moral principle peace and social tranquility would prevail. The irrational obeys because they have surrendered their sovereignty whereas the rational obeys because it insures their sovereignty.

You should also be careful when invoking Locke because Liberalism, Marxism, and Socialism all find their roots in his philosophical teachings...

So, your question was to purpose; Consensus agreement gives order and meaning to science. Suppose you have 1000 scientists working on 1000 theories and when each finishes they tuck them away and work on 1000 more. You argue that this is science but but it has no form, meaning, or application. There is no purpose other than self gratification and if the purpose of science is 1000 self gratified scientists than it is a fairly useless pursuit. To gain purpose it has to be exposed to peer review and only with consensus agreement does it gain purpose. And how have we scarified accuracy? Do you think a plurality of scientists would only accept base 10 mathematics if it were inaccurate? The opposite is true because consensus agreement requires that each use scientific method and critical thinking to examine the theory and agree on the principles. There is no compromise nor sacrifice of accuracy but instead a plurality confirmation that the theory true.


The Title of the Tread is What Purpose does God Serve? Science has order and meaning with or without consensus. The results of experimentation, discovery, and invention stand on their own merit, within and beyond our individual and applied understanding in relation to function, use application, and advancement. A person may have a dream or vision in relation to the solution to a problem, an idea is born out of thin air and constructed in the physical world for the first time, the invention solves a problem and serves purpose, with or without your or my approval. The same holds for discovery. Ego and self gratification have no place unless you grant it. Why even bring it up? The pursuit of knowledge for knowledges sake is not useless pursuit. Unless it is your time, resource, or check book, who are you, or I to question, someone Else's area of pursuit? Does someone on a mission need our distraction? Who is to say what will come of it? I suggest that for something to gain True Purpose, it needs to be justified. Evidence or Proof are forms of Justification. I'm sure there are many others. Peer review may help qualify, and it may needlessly delay and obstruct. It is a tool, that when used wisely, benefits the whole. It may be a good tool in education, yet it is not absolute. It is not the reason for discovery or invention. Scientific method is important for many reasons, critical thinking, will always be limited to the individual or group.

Locke's reference was to Consciousness and was in respect to 'knowing' ones thoughts and actions. It is a intuitive philosophical position with respect to the individual as their own sovereign. It is also based on irrational ism and you should understand that Locke's work largely breached the period between the Dark Ages and the Age of Reason so he was taking irrational beliefs and transcending them to rational philosophical beliefs or absolutes. But argue 'truth' to Consciousness without critical thought and there is no way to know if your choice is true or misguided. You may well have a right to an intuitive belief but it doesn't separate you from the misguided masses.


Locke was a pretty strong Christian, and much of his philosophy came from his study of scripture along with life experience. John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration He does accent what we give up by consent, to form community. I would suggest that he recognized God as the Universal Sovereign, All beings being rooted in self, subject to Natural Law, social in nature, reaching beyond the self. Natural Law is for all to discover and develop, with or without the consent of the group. One's ability to achieve has little relation to what another either distinguishes or fails to distinguish. In relation to the misguided masses, the solution has always been individual.

---to edit and add to this last statement: 'Thou shalt not Kill' is regarded as a moral absolute. From the perspective of the irrational it is an absolute because it is a commandment of God the sovereign. Locke however would view this rationally from the perspective of the individual as their own sovereign where, if, each individual adhered to the moral principle peace and social tranquility would prevail. The irrational obeys because they have surrendered their sovereignty whereas the rational obeys because it insures their sovereignty.

"Thou shalt not kill" is not a moral absolute. The Bible has sanctioned it, Governments and Kings have sanctioned it, circumstance has sanctioned it. True there are those that have not killed because circumstance has allowed an alternative, there are those that have not killed because of Faith, there are those worried about punishment, and there are those that have not been tested yet. The desire to preserve life should be inherent to the moral being.

You should also be careful when invoking Locke because Liberalism, Marxism, and Socialism all find their roots in his philosophical teachings..

We should always be careful, yet in relation to free speech and purpose, we carve our own path. Fear of misuse of any resource, would have us locked in our closets. Marxism, Liberalism, and Socialism, are in conflict with Locke, because their end result is Totalitarian. Locke is Rooted in Inalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty, and Property, or with the Jefferson Twist, Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Anguille]

Most people on Earth believe in a form of Deity because they have a brain that is sufficiently developed to allow them to do so Fox. There may be some other primates that have rudimentary religious beliefs but as far as I know the evidence on that is yet to be produced. So for now it appears as if humans, we with the big brains, are the only creatures on this Earth that are able to wonder about our existence and to invent mythologies as explanations.

Are you saying my brain isn't developed?

I don't believe most people believe in a deity. Even though surveys may show that a minority identify as atheists or agnostics, I think most people just automatically respond to those surveys saying they are members of this or that religion or have this or that personal spiritual belief.
There is still a stigma attached to non-belief or doubt in many parts of the world. Like so many types of surveys, people often respond as they think they ought to respond and it is not always a truthful or well thought out response. I have no way of proving my theory, it's just my perception of human nature.

 

[Foxfyre]

QUOTE/]Most people on Earth believe in a form of Deity because they have a brain that is sufficiently developed to allow them to do so Fox. There may be some other primates that have rudimentary religious beliefs but as far as I know the evidence on that is yet to be produced. So for now it appears as if humans, we with the big brains, are the only creatures on this Earth that are able to wonder about our existence and to invent mythologies as explanations.

As we have not yet developed a means to communicate on an abstract level with any other creatures, we can't know whether other creatures are aware of supernatural phenomenon though can we? We do know that many, if not most, non-human creatures have sensory and perhaps some cognitive abilities beyond the reach of most or all humans. But it would be highly speculative to assume that most humans invent a deity or deities rather allow for the possibility that there is some unseen force at play in the phenomenon.

But you answered a different question than the one I asked.

The question I asked was:

Most people on Earth believe in some form of Deity. More than a billion profess a relationship with the JudeoChristian God. But despite such a cloud of witnesses, there are some who seem almost desperate to believe that it is not real. . . .why?

To rephrase: why do some seem so desperate to discount or discredit or explain away the faith/belief of believers?

What force seems to drive an almost fanatical compulsion to prove that their nonbelief is justified?

 

[vincubus]

QUOTE/]Most people on Earth believe in a form of Deity because they have a brain that is sufficiently developed to allow them to do so Fox. There may be some other primates that have rudimentary religious beliefs but as far as I know the evidence on that is yet to be produced. So for now it appears as if humans, we with the big brains, are the only creatures on this Earth that are able to wonder about our existence and to invent mythologies as explanations.

As we have not yet developed a means to communicate on an abstract level with any other creatures, we can't know whether other creatures are aware of supernatural phenomenon though can we? We do know that many, if not most, non-human creatures have sensory and perhaps some cognitive abilities beyond the reach of most or all humans. But it would be highly speculative to assume that most humans invent a deity or deities rather allow for the possibility that there is some unseen force at play in the phenomenon.

But you answered a different question than the one I asked.

The question I asked was:

Most people on Earth believe in some form of Deity. More than a billion profess a relationship with the JudeoChristian God. But despite such a cloud of witnesses, there are some who seem almost desperate to believe that it is not real. . . .why?

To rephrase: why do some seem so desperate to discount or discredit or explain away the faith/belief of believers?

What force seems to drive an almost fanatical compulsion to prove that their nonbelief is justified?

i suppose i would ask why do "believers" ( the religious) seek to persuade "believers" (read those who believe in themselves) that there IS a god(s) or goddess(es)?

fanatical? how is putting the second set of believers to death, shunning them, belittling them, physically attacking them, and even burning down their homes NOT fanatical?

 

[JohnStOnge]

Don't know if anyone else already said these things because I haven't read all the replies. However, one purpose is hope. Without something beyond the physical, there is no hope. You live for an instant and pass into nonexistence. Nothing has any real purpose.

Another purpose is an underlying, objective source of morality. Without the premise that there is something outside of and higher than humankind that sets the rules, there is no basis for saying anything is either "right" or "wrong." All just is.

Without that concept, there is always a "why" question. Why should you not harm the interests of others? Why should you not destroy the planet? Nothing really matters.

 

[tigerbob]

Everyone that counts.

Gotcha.

 

[Avatar4321]

i suppose i would ask why do "believers" ( the religious) seek to persuade "believers" (read those who believe in themselves) that there IS a god(s) or goddess(es)?

Because there is a God and we delight in Truth. The Truth sets us free. The Truth brings joy in our lives and when we feel that kind of joy we cant help but want to share it with all that will listen.

fanatical? how is putting the second set of believers to death, shunning them, belittling them, physically attacking them, and even burning down their homes NOT fanatical?

Good question. Why do you do that?

 

[The Illusion]

If humans are capable of doing things on our own....creating technology...creating medical "savior" procedures....Performing miracles using medicine and other techniques....etc

What is the purpose of God? In any religion?

Jamie

What makes you think we did any of those things on our own?

Did we create the metal ore that goes into our machines?

Did we create the materials used in our buildings?

Did we create the laws of nature by which these things are accomplished?

Did we create our minds? our hands?

Exactly when have we done anything "on our own"?

Can we make ourselves immortal? Can we give ourselves power?

I think it's rather naive to assume we have done much of anything.

You are using an argumentative fallacy here by asking so many questions...to justify a point. I believe its called The Red Herring and/or Plurium interrogationum....and about 3 others.....So the only thing that I am going to say to that is that I think our minds are what create everything in front of us using a collective consciousness that links us all together. Remember, I said "I think" and you cannot argue something that is my personal opinion.

Religions need something they can manipulate to serve their purposes and never have to back up with real evidence because it's all about faith and m-y-s-t-e-r-y and you're big party pooper if you question any of that.

Which of course is why we are taught to ask so we can recieve, seek so we can find, knock so it can be opened unto us. This is why we are taught to seek after good and uplifting thing. Because We aren't supposed to question anything. We arent supposed to learn. We are supposed to just blindly believe.

Do you know what a "mystery" is in the religious sense? A mystery is truth that must be learned directly from God. It's not something that is unknowable. Quite the opposite. It is very knowable, if you seek the answer. Because God will show it to you.

Unfortunately, at some point society changed the definition of the word. So the meaning is lost to so many. But the mysteries of the universe can be known to those who seek the answers. The things of God can be known by those who seek God. He can show them to people. Ive never understood why people seem to think we should just be able to reason out the things of God rather than just simply going to Him and learning directly. It makes no sense.

I've always had a dim understanding of the need for belief in a god, I've just never understood why anyone had to make a club out of believing in a god or gods. Seems like it should be a private thing. If you need peer pressure to keep your faith strong it must not be based on anything very tenuous.

When you understand the plan of happiness, when you feel the love of God, you feel compelled to share it. You want everyone to be just as happy. Because the joy of the Lord is Eternal. It is Endless.

God is the great teacher. He teaches us what we need to do to be happy and what will make society peaceful. Sadly, few societies have ever actually followed those guidelines. But there will be one in the last days. In fact, it may be sooner than many think.

A mystery is different in every religion. There are mystery schools...mystery religions...and each is different. To Wiccans there are mysteries that are completely different from Islamic mystery traditions. It just depends on which tradition you are talking about. What you believe could be a mystery to everyone else because it is your own personal belief..and if you explained it clearly enough to someone, they might understand a surface level understanding of what it is that you believe, but they will never understand to the depth that you do.. no matter if you are both Christians or both Muslims. Personal belief is very different from person to person....but the doctrine and same basic principals might apply.

Jamie

 

[The Illusion]

i suppose i would ask why do "believers" ( the religious) seek to persuade "believers" (read those who believe in themselves) that there IS a god(s) or goddess(es)?

Because there is a God and we delight in Truth. The Truth sets us free. The Truth brings joy in our lives and when we feel that kind of joy we cant help but want to share it with all that will listen.

fanatical? how is putting the second set of believers to death, shunning them, belittling them, physically attacking them, and even burning down their homes NOT fanatical?

Good question. Why do you do that?

Again, you are using an argumentative fallacy here to avoid the conclusive answer.

Vincubus is sitting on the floor behind me and he wants to know when you are going to stop bearing false witness and when are you going to learn to comprehend. Deliberately misunderstanding is an act of bearing false witness he says.

Jamie