Religion

Sorry in advance if it offends anyone. I actually spit coffee all over my overpriced computer monitor/TV when I saw where they were going with it.

I have often been asked what would it take to make me believe in a God, Gods, or Goddesses and i usually use the flippant answer of make the sun stand still in the sky or move planets around but if you really think about it advanced technology could conceivably do that. Another idea is that if the universe really turns out to be not only life friendly but actually allows for FTL space travel but being life friendly and allowing for FTL space travel is also not proof of the divine. But what if we find out that space travel is easy, FTL is easy, say some unknown zero point type energy allows for it and we find that not only are Earth like planets common but that the…

The fast and dirty version of Plantinga's argument: Let's take a look at omniscience. Omniscience is typically defined as :"S is omniscient iff for every proposition p, if p is true then S knows p is true". It should be pointed out that Plantinga endorses a stronger version of this. For Plantinga, not only is knowing the truth value of all propositions a requirement for omniscience, but also having no false beliefs. From here, we can search for propositions whose truth value a Maximally Excellent Being cannot know. So, we need to find a true proposition P such that "The Maximally Great Being cannot know P is true". Now, P could be anything. P could be "Buttered t…

In light of the 2012 thing going on, I thought this might catch some interest. When I was a kid, I was interested in astrology. In the time I spent learning it, I learned that there are some commonly accepted ideas that are actually quite silly. If you ever need to disuade someone from accepting astrological claims, you can use these sillynesses to your advantage. #1 Zodiac Duality Astrologers almost universally use the ecliptic as the reference plane for their chosen zodiac (i.e. they use ecliptic longitude). However, many of them disagree about whether sidereal zodiac or the tropical zodiac should be used. The sidereal zodiac is roughly aligned with the con…

Looks like we will have to perform the next act on the same stage, with the same cast of characters.

Let me start of by saying I am new to these forums. I am a freshman Science major at a uni. My argument is you cannot grasp an understanding of Atheism fully until you explore why you don't believe in a deity. "Becoming scientifically literate." Anyone disagree?

That problem would be science. Science paints us an entirely God-free picture. Nowhere in the equations that describe how the universe is there a place for God. So, it is possible that God doesn't exist. That, while it may not seem like much, is a death blow to any necessary god. 1) g⊃□g 2) ⋄~g 3) Therefore, by Modus Tollens, ~g. This works because ⋄p is defined as ~□~p. So, when we have ⋄~g, we can rewrite it as ~□~~g and then use double negation to get ~□g. Now the Modus Tollens should be fairly obvious. If your god's existence is necessary, then the current state of science says your god doesn't exist.

Quite a few members have asked me about this jewel thing but I am not sure what concept they have in mind. Actually the meaning of it is quite esoteric and don't understand how much of it is turning out to be true. One needs to read the teachings in the Tibetan Buddhism to understand it and they have explicitly explained it. http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf Just read it once. Its true that westerners don't know that the orthodox traditions seriously believe in the existence of these deities and I actually don't find any good academic scholar even talking about it in his works, so for people hearing it for the first time might find it ridicu…

It's sometimes claimed that God is neccessary or impossible (this is the basis of some modal arguments). That is, if God exists, its existence is necessary and if it doesn't exists, its nonexistence is necessary. I got bored, so I decided to play around with that. If we take the first conditional ("If God exists, it necessarily exists") to be true, we can break down all of the possible worlds in which it is true into three classes of worlds. If we take the second conditional ("If God doesn't exist, it necessarily doesn't exist), then we also get three classes of possible worlds in which it is true. If we take both to be true, then we get nine classes of possible world…

It does not even make any sense to imagine an "end" to a universe where it is already evident that it must take "at least" scores of billions of years for happenings at one end, to "reach" the other. The universe has no way to "end" at the same moment. So the desire for personal "knowledge" of the "end" of the universe must be a psychological, whim, of some sort, and might indicate a desire to project ones own evident mortality on the universe. It is hard to admit to oneself, that life will go on, without you. But the universe has shown some rather strong stay-to-itiveness and does not appear to have a way to suddenly cease operations. I would say it is com…

To say that either religion or science is the only way to think, leaves a person using only half their brain. A scientist such as Steven Hawkins believes that through his knowledge, perseverance, trial and error; there is no secrets of nature that cannot eventually be unlocked by science. A religious person such as Billy Graham, regardless of which faith he espouses, believes that through his faith and belief, he will one day understand the true measure of GOD. Knowing that each of us must eventually die, who has the best shot at immortality? Scientifically, Steven Hawkins has few peers and an undeniable understanding of the cosmos. But is his rationale the ultimate reaso…

Howard Phillips (H.P.) Lovecraft, while not a "good" author, was undebatably one of the most influential authors of the 20th century, and one whose writing has gained significance in the decades after his death. While he most certainly was a pulp author, this does not bear any relevance to his importance today. Cosmicism is the literary philosophy he developed and used by this author. Lovecraft was a writer of philosophically intense horror stories that involve occult phenomena like extra-terrestial possession and alien miscegenation, and the themes of his fiction over time contributed to the development of this philosophy. The philosophy of cosmicism states…

I started this thread in attempt to find out people's views on how they are able to worship a creator of the universe. Discussion of whether or not a creator exists or not is not the intention of this thread, and I'd ask non-believers to ask themselves "would I worship a creator of the universe if it's existence were proven?". When I consider this question and ask it to myself, I respond no. If a creator's existence were proven even hypothetically I could not worship it, simply because I couldn't allow myself to worship the being/thing that invented/designed the concept of survival of the fittest, as well as many of the nasty possibilities present in the fitness lands…

"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one] cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They [are] upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also [is it] in them to do good."-Jeremiah 10:1-5

First of all, I must explain what I mean by "The Sandwich." The Sandwich is a supreme entity who gifted humanity with consumptive satisfaction (i.e. the true version of Prometheus, akin to Abrahamic religion vs Greek "mythology"). The Sandwichian belief is that he/she (or maybe it) is considered God (or a God, or... maybe not anything theistic... if you are not of the Sandwichian belief.) I am here to disprove the Sandwichian belief. However, there's one question I probably should ask prior: Where the tomatoes did Sandwichianism come from anyway? Although, I think regardless of this sensible question, Sandwichianism does have some great prospects. I would rate these prosp…

Being an agnostic I can say pretty much say as I please in the religious portion of this forum so long as it is within reason, right? I'm wishy washy at best, but I came across this short video a day or so ago and it intrigued me. I remember "The Paul Harvey Show" from years past but never saw this version on any of his programs. It's interesting! And reading so much hyperbole here on the forum concerning religious and non-religious platforms, I thought it might be worth your time. It's onlyone mans opinion of his devil, but not necessarily mine. Chime in so that we might discuss it rationally. http://stg.do/9LDc

I know i'm generalizing two groups of people and breaking it down to the individual we will get varying results on both sides. Lets talk about this from the average population standpoint. An agnostic generally believes that full knowledge on the subject of god is not attainable. If their is a god were not going to understand it. A christian believes that God created man and sent his son or "human form" down to earth to teach man about his presence. Christians have a religious text called the bible. They believe that god, jesus, and other holy men have their teachings written down in this text and having faith that this text proves gods existence. So b…

Hi all,I think I finally got the answer. Please read and respond if I'm wrong.I will start by proving our current understanding of Mathematics is wrong. Did Georg Cantor get it wrong? What I believe Cantor found was the infinite possibilities within the number "1". One explains itself and every other number including the infinite possibilities within itself. ALL different types of numerical expressions like fractions, decimal points, percentages, whole numbers, irrational number, etc, are different ways of expressing this one number within our finite system. One is the identity of mathematics. It is such a perfect number that any variations on the 100% value of 1, i…

Sometimes I feel trapped by a world that I didn't choose to live in. So why are we forever stuck in limbo on the lowest planes of existence? Maybe it's because: 1) It's easier to believe a comfortable lie than a hard truth 2) "Conspiracy" is an overused word used by uninformed people to describe something that they are unfamiliar with. It's makes for an easy way to dismiss a topic that they would rather not know about 3) We were given senses so that we may be aware of and discover the world around us. However, the senses are often dismissed with the following statement… 4) "There is no scientific evidence to support that idea". This coul…

What would a Christian do? In this video three scenarios are presented and the reaction to these situations by Christians is solicited, kind of a biblical version of "What would you do?

As we head into the future, will religion ever lose it's grip amongst the people? What are your thoughts about this? And is the Bible guidance for humanity? Would the world be a better place if we were all evangelized? Does anything else teach better ethics than religion?

How can one 'choose' to believe? In all honesty, I would probably jump on the chance to really believe in a god... saviour... heaven and hell... afterlife... heck, everlasting life! What a deal! Sign me up! But it just doesn't work that way... does it? You can't just decide one day that you believe Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour... your God. You can't just 'choose to believe'. What it comes down to for me (i think) is the word believe (or belief). Someone who says that they believe, means that they hold this thing to be the truth... there is no halfway... there is no 'level' or extent of belief... there is no scale from 1 to ten how much you believe... …

Both scientific objects and God cannot exist in the external physical world. Either scientific objects exist and disproves God or God exists and disproves our notion that scientific objects exist independent of the mind. Chapter 1, On physics and philosophy[/url] – Bernard d'Espagnat. Towards a Philosophical Reconstruction of the Dialogue between Modern Physics and Advaita Vedanta:–Jonathon Duquette. "QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA": A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM – Jonathon Duquette. Science and Mysticism: AComparative study of Western Natural Science, Theravada Buddhism and AdvaitaVedanta – an essay on Richard H.Jones book.

In Hinduism there is this concept called Brahman ( not to confused with Braahman a Hindu priest), the all pervading truth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman ). It sounds very similar to quantum mechanical concepts. Also, many physicsts like Schrodinger have said to have gotten inspiration from this concept. Thoughts on this ?

One problem that I cant seem to understand is why all theists are grouped into one category when there are multiple definitions for "god". What if my deities are the life forms where our DNA molecules originated and were brought to earth on an asteroid. Can't happen? Tell me why? The first self replicating molecules responsible for our existence have not been explained, this is argued between scientists. The furthest evidence we can get our hands on isnt sufficient to give a definite yes or no to any theory. Therefore, there is no right or wrong explanation. Sure, a deity may sound ridiculous to many, but it is also extremely irrational to draw a full conclusion witho…