posted 11-12-98 12:52 PM ET        

I guess I can begin. I was raised a Catholic, and attended Catholic schools through high school. In college I became a computer Engineer. In my opinion science and religion co-exist in a natural harmony. For God created this universe and everything in it obeys his laws. That means that God created the natural and spiritual laws. Science is our interpretation of how physical laws work. Religion is our interpretation of how spiritual laws work. They are both continuously being redefined as the world changes. Neither is wrong.

I guess in order to understand the some of my other beleifs, it's important to see why I came to beleive them. After graduating college, I began working for the Swiss Bank in the Chicago Board of Trade. I had an expensive apartment downtown, I ate at the best restaurants in the world, I was a Yuppie. I was also the most unhappy I had ever been in my life. Almost all of the people I worked with were atheists. Greed ran rampant. Thanks to them, I now know the true meaning of the word "workaholic". This is where I learned one of the most important lessons in my spiritual life - balance. By being out of balance, I was unable to focus time on spiritual growth. You cannot serve two masters - money and God. Without realizing it, I had begun to worship money. Most of what I thought about on a day to day basis was stocks, salary, and bonuses. You can't think about God when you are continually thinking about money.

10 months after joining, I quit, moved back to my home city and began balancing my life. I began going to church regularly, working out, building true friendships, and enjoying God's world. But, there was still a lot of room to grow.

I noticed that as I became less consumed by money, I still wasn't focusing on God. How could I? Every time I got home from work, I sat on the couch, and turned on the tv. When I was in the car, the radio was on. My mind was continously occupied by the media which flooded my eyes and ears. So, I began taking the time to look out the window, see a creation of God, and thank God for this wonder of nature in all of it's complex forms. I didn't turn the tv on when I came home every night, and I stopped listening to the radio as much. Instead, I spent time thinking, praying, and thanking God for all he had given me.

In finding balance, I found happiness and time to develop a closer relationship with God. I still think about money, watch tv, and listen to the radio, but they now fall at the bottom of my list instead of consuming my every thought. However, there's still room for growth. I'm still working on spending less time on the computer ; ).

I hope that this will inspire you to find balance in your life...

posted 11-12-98 12:59 PM ET            

Larry ??? When's the party ???

I think I'll surrender to brother Greg's proposal for a while simply because I've noticed myself repeating the same things over and over !!!

posted 11-12-98 03:26 PM ET            

However, this reality is deceiving, although man lives more and more as if the spiritual did not exist and the visible were the only measure of all things. Modern-day man suffers from lack of spiritual values and it is for this very reason that many people go astray and search for a meaning of life. This
search, which does not accept the need for God and the Spiritual, can only end in
darkness and disappointment.

This concealment leads a person to enslavement at the hands of other mere
human beings or even illusionary spiritual movements, which most often end
up in a deep abyss. In this world, there is a real lack of places and people to whom one can reveal one's longing for God and for His closeness.

Let this forum be a place where people who are searching for God do not hide or
disguise their desire for God. Here they may reveal their problems and difficulties and know that they will be taken seriously.

posted 11-12-98 11:02 PM ET            

However, on to my position: I am an atheist.

I was raised Catholic. I was reasonably observant of the religion (we were the opposite of Christmas and Easter Catholics -- we'd go every Sunday except those times when the church was going to be too crowded). That lasted up until high school.

In high school, I read a book talking about "cellular automata". Celluar automata are mathematical constructs (frequently done on computers) where a set of data and some simple rules for calculating the next state are put together, and state after state is calculated. The "Game of Life" is an example of this -- you have a grid, and each point in the grid can either be "alive" or "dead". To calculate the state of the grid in the next time period, you look at each cells eight neighbors (N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, SW). If the cell has zero or one living neighbors, it is dead during the next cycle. If the cell has two or three living neighbors, it is alive during the next cycle. If it has four or more living neighbors, it is dead during the next cycle. This scheme can result in amazingly complicated patterns (some people think it makes a good screen saver).

The thing that really impressed me about cellular automata was that for certain classes of them, there is no way to figure out what the state of the grid is going to be at some point in the future that is less computationally intensive than actually running through each of the states (that sentence is far too complicated, but I can't figure out how to say what I mean clearly). This basically means that the state can't be predicted, even though it is completely deterministic. (I believe that this was proven by Alan Turing, perhaps using the incompleteness theorem).

That blew me away. Something as simple as a binary on-off pattern and a few trivial rules could get together and create something totally new and unpredictable, like the pattern you see after 1000 cycles through the rules. It boggled my mind (and still impresses me to this day).

Thinking about this, it occured to me that the same processes HAD to be happening in nature. Everything in nature interracts. Even though the interactions are simple, they all come together in a fantasticly unpredictable and lively way. Knowing this, I saw less and less reason to believe in a creator, since these complex patterns and interractions frequently just "arise" out of randomness.

However, I still clung to my belief in God for a while. I said, "well, even though God doesn't need to take an active part in the Universe, everything could still be completely deterministic, so maybe He had a divine plan, and he started everything in it in motion at the instant of creation." But as I considered this, it became less and less satisfying.

If God really did interract with the Universe only at the time of creation, then what chance would I have that my prayers would be answered? What was the point of my praying? Why would God change something he had obviously planned for for countless years before I even existed? If God really did create the entire universe, and set in motion everything that would happen within it, in that single instant, wouldn't He already be aware of my wants and needs? Wouldn't He already be aware of EVERYBODY's wants and needs? Wouldn't He be the CAUSE of everybody's wants and needs?

And so, I decided that if there truly is a creator, then he is not the kind of person I was talking about when I said God. He was not a compassionate soul, or a guiding moral influence, or anything. He was little more than the laws of physics. And then I realized "why do I need to anthropomorphize the laws of physics?". So, basically, I don't belive in God because I don't see how He fits into the universe. The universe, as far as I can tell, doesn't need a creator, so I don't believe in one.

posted 11-13-98 12:53 AM ET            

Inn resopnce to "thanking God for everything" or "looking at Creation":
------------------------------------

--I hope that eventually you will be able to look upon this miracle of creation and believe in the Creator.-- DHE_X2

You imply that, because it seems so impossible to understand, we must credit it to a Creator. I don't buy that. I live a life of awe because of the mysteries of the universe. When you look at a blade of grass, do you see it as a creation of God or as a complex piece of evolution? Do you see it as such a great wonder of life, or as another creation? It is the wonder and magnifisance of this small plant. This plant, the product of supernova, star formation, nebula, with it's begening as a gas with one proton? This fantastic blade of grass, and the long path it has taken. From the billions of degrees from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, where the amount of energy in such a small place allowed the photons to be convered into matter and antimatter, just a fraction of which is still in the universe, most annihilated in flashes of light as they collided with their counterpart particals. Those simple atoms of proterium which were fromed in that first instant formed stars. Some of these stars were huge enough to collapse into supernovae, which heated the elements to a high enough degree to form the higher elements. The debris from the supernova fromed a cloud of gas and solids. Many generations of birth and death of stars occored before our star was formed. From the gas cloud that started our sun, earth, and indeed, our solar system. Our earth was bombarded with water in the form of ice. After aeons, this water formed a safe haven for the first amino acids, then for life. Billions of years of evolution passed, and now we have this blade of grass. So simple, yet so complex. So old, yet so new. So beautiful, yet so full of death. Do you see that in a blade of grass? This is what I see. I have no need of a "god" for fufilment and wonder in my life. Science provides all I need.

Finally, and most importantly, you are hydrogen from the Big Bang, given 15 billion years to evolve. You were nothing greater, but you are the Universe Incarnate! True, there is no diety in charge of everything, tinkering with lives and stuff, but you are the Universe! You can think because of a remarkable process called evolution. The ability to think is an evolutionary advantage, nothing more. But what an advantage! That, by pure chance and accident, we can contemplate our existance, our origin! But, be saddened: there is nothing after death. Our neurons stop functioning, and we cease to exist. So make your life a great one! The best you can! But do not be mislead, for you will end up working for nothing. But be the best you can, and you will die happy, in the knowledge that your short existance in this chaotic universe will have an impact. For that is the goal of life: to positivly influence the future, so you will not be forgotten. So you may be, in a way, eternal.
------------------------------

posted 11-13-98 04:29 AM ET            

I don't live my life for anybody else. I live my life for me. If I make a lasting impression on this universe, that will be nice, but it is in no way central to my personal fulfillment. If I make a lasting impression on one single person, that will be nice, but it is in no way central to my personal fulfillment. If, every day, I understand something that I didn't understand the day before, that will contribute to my personal fulfillment.

posted 11-13-98 05:22 AM ET            

Octopus: Intesting. Everyone has their own definition of a good life. So then would you oppose any religion that said only one type of life is good? Are there any limits to what a person could define as their own good life? Refer to the Bob thing. What if he sincerely thought that killing people with spoons was a good life? Is that OK?

posted 11-13-98 11:46 AM ET            

After finding balance in my life, I began to look for God and make Him a larger part of my life. I agree with the others on this thread in that I would have no interest in a "hands off" God who set things up at the "Big Bang" and forgot about it. So, I looked deeper, to find God's active influence in the world. It's amazing. When you really look for God, you will find Him. I found many people whose lives had been turned around through faith. People who had led miserable lives, by their own admission, had found happiness and peace.

In addition to real life testimonials, I was able to experience a deeper peace when I prayed. Then I sought out more signs of God
in my life. That's when I turned to the miracles of God. I looked at previous times when God has made his presence known to man, such as at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadaloupe, & Medjugorje. A friend of mine had mentioned these to me, and that he had personally witnessed a miracle at Medjugorje. So I investigated them. What I found was nothing short of miraculous. I can't possibly go into it all without writing at least another 3 pages. If you want more information about these miracles, simply ask.

My faith was strengthened by the love that our Lord has shown us. Knowing that He loves me, no matter what happens, I cannot help but be happy. I think that is the true miracle of God. When you find Him, and begin a relationship with Him, you are truly happy.

posted 11-13-98 12:02 PM ET            

Destrider, let's look:

"I found many people whose lives had been turned around through faith. People who had led miserable lives, by their own admission, had found happiness and peace."

"In addition to real life testimonials, I was able to experience a deeper peace when I prayed."

Faith and prayer can make a good psychotherapy, but where's the argument for an "involved" god there ?

"That's when I turned to the miracles of God. I looked at previous times when God has made his presence known to man, such as at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadaloupe, & Medjugorje. A friend of mine had mentioned these to me, and that he had personally witnessed a miracle at Medjugorje. So I investigated them. What I found was nothing short of miraculous. I can't possibly go into it all without writing at least another 3 pages. If you want more information about these miracles, simply ask."

Every religion says it has miracles, so far I haven't seen any miracles. Mass halluzinations are a pretty good explanation.

"Knowing that He loves me, no matter what happens, I cannot help but be happy. I think that is the true miracle of God. When you find Him, and begin a relationship with Him, you are truly happy."

Happiness as a reason for faith ? Do you believe in Prozac ? Look in the "godless universe" thread for the happiness of agnostics and atheists.

"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."
(lbert Camus)

posted 11-13-98 12:22 PM ET            

As for Bob, the spoon-killing maniac, if he thinks that he's living a good life, he's living a good life as far as he's concerned. Of course, when he comes near me brandishing a spoon he's going to learn that his goals aren't so easy to attain...

" It's not about following some code, it's all about love. That's it." I have to disagree with Larry Boy on this one. One of the most useful things that religion offers is structure. For example, one of the biggest things that I miss about Catholicism is Confession. With that, I always had somewhere to go to where I knew that I would be accepted, no matter what I had done wrong. I knew that there would always be a priest there to guide me if I sought out his guidance. This has nothing to do with God's love, but with the structure and community of the church. The "laws" of the church are as much a part of that structure and community as the people that populate it.

posted 11-13-98 12:24 PM ET            

As for mass hallucinations, this is preposterous. Every known way of inducing hallucinations produces vastly different results in each person. If I laced 70,000 people's drinks with LSD, you would have 70,000 different reactions. Everyone would not see the same thing at the same time for the same duration, with no after effects. I think it would be easier to prove God scientifically than to prove a way of generating mass hallucinations on this scale.
The reason that these are miracles is that there is no possible way that they could be generated by man. I'm interested in hearing your theories, though.

Here's another little miracle to think about. The incorruptible bodies of the saints. St. Bernadette has been dead for roughly 150 years, yet it appears that she is only sleeping. Thousands upon thousands have seen her incorruptible body. Why does this only happen to saints?

Ok, I'll concede that Prozac can make you feel temporarily happy. But the happiness I am talking about comes from fulfillment that carries through from day to day.

posted 11-13-98 12:53 PM ET            

I am arguing that faith as such, faith as an alleged method of aquiring knowledge, is totally invalid and as a consequence, all propositions of faith, because they lack rational demonstration, must conflict with reason."
[George H. Smith, from _Atheism: The Case Against God_]

Atheism is a requirement for a complete human being. Religion is a crutch that
is shackled to you, one you never really needed in the first place, but were
convinced by others that you couldn't live without. Once you discover it's
only an illusion, that it's not even a real crutch, you discard it gladly."
[Brent Yaciw, [email protected]]

posted 11-13-98 01:16 PM ET            

There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for example touching ethics, or our relation to God, or concerning our destiny and our future; but their solution lies wholly beyond us and completely outside the province of science.
(C.F. Gauss)

It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason.

(Blaise Pascal)

These great mathematicians prove that science and religion coexist. For they redefined science, and yet they were religious.

As for your quotes:

1.) Religion conflicting with reason. True, but only if you try to use reason to prove religion. You cannot develop a logical proof to argue against this, therefore those who look at the world through ONLY logic cannot comprehend religion. If you combine the two, then you can look at everything. Likewise you cannot logically prove good and evil, yet I assure you that they exist.

2.) A man was given a laptop for his birthday. He carried it around everywhere he went, but it was an annoying crutch to him. Others told him it would improve his life. He discarded it, and was glad that he no longer had to carry it around. Too bad he had never bothered to turn it on.

3.) The Easter bunny was created by a commercial advertising firm to increase sales.

posted 11-13-98 03:03 PM ET            

"3.) The Easter bunny was created by a commercial advertising firm to increase sales."

The Church was created by a bunch of discontent people looking for a way to force their opinion upon others. So the Church and the easter bunny have more in common than you would think...

"But, why is it, that when people's lives are truly shaken, and they look to God to grant them inner peace, they are granted it? A permanent peace that can be granted in no other way save prayer. No, Prozac and other drugs do not grant the same peace. Albeit, having not gone through this yourself, you cannot understand it..."

Everyone looking to god gets inner peace ? Well, I doubt that's true, but if so, seems to be a persuasive strategy. "Hey, you'll feel better if you believe". On Prozac later. And not having gone through it, I could say the same: You have not gone through the process of freeing yourself from the chains of religion other men have forced upon you, you do not know that kind of freedom.

"The reason that these are miracles is that there is no possible way that they could be generated by man. I'm interested in hearingyour theories, though."

A good special effects crew, and way we go...

"Here's another little miracle to think about. The incorruptible bodies of the saints. St. Bernadette has been dead for roughly 150 years, yet it appears that she is only sleeping. Thousands upon thousands have seen her incorruptible body. Why does this only happen to saints?"

First, does it also happen to saints of other religions ? If so, does that mean that all religions are true ? How? And btw, I hear Lenin's still in pretty good shape, but he's a saint as well, just that of a sick ideology.

"Ok, I'll concede that Prozac can make you feel temporarily happy. But the happiness I am talking about comes from fulfillment that carries through from day to day."

posted 11-13-98 09:25 PM ET            

1.Where did the universe come from ?

2.Where did the gases that create stars come from?

3.Where did plantes come from ?

4 How did life start on earth ?

5.How did the metorites(SP) land on earth to create life ?

6 Why was earth so planed out ?

7Why did cilivization develop ?

8. Why had Earth been a chosen planet to have life ?

9 What created the moon ?

10 What created the Sun ?

posted 11-15-98 07:44 AM ET            

Here it goes:

I will simple state what I believe and see how all the rapid-posters on this thread decide to react to it.

Concerning Atheism/Theism-Spirtuality:

If we use a simple way the ancient greeks devised for looking at the universe, we can gain a greater handle to this: physics versus metaphysics. Physics, we must understand, only operates WITHIN the bounds of physical reality, metaphysics concerns itself with everything beyond physical reality.

Atheists assume that there is nothing that is beyond physical reality, and thus physics is universal, there is no metaphysics.

If we, for a moment (whether we are atheist or agnostic or quite religious) assume complete atheism and assume the laws and logic of physics are universal, then we can move on (thank you):

The first concept of physics is that all things must have a cause (I hear this often from atheists arguing against the existance of a deity, so you all shouldn't have a problem with it, right? good). As Aristotle reasoned, if all things must have a cause, then the causes for actions must proceed to infinity. However, in physics, since all things MUST have a cause, there can be no infinity.

Thus, using the first and most important principal of physics, we cannot devise a universal truth. If this universe was born of a universe creation "mulitverse" (as current theory has suggested), then the question of phyisics is then logically "what caused that?" Even if we prove that the "multiverse" is steady-state, nirvana of endless reality with infinite beginning and end, it still does not answer the question of how it "got there."

Physics MUST answer this question for everything to be understood as part of physical reality. And even if we discover the answer to that, the question then only moves to the next level of "how did that GET here."

Thus, even as an atheist, it must be conceeded that there is some, as Aristotle put it "un-moved mover." Aristotle, who did the same sort of thought experiment couldn't get around the fact that all things must have a cause. However, that is an impossiblity. Thus, there MUST be an "un-moved mover."

Thus, I feel forced to concede the reality of at least deism (the belief in a deity that exists for no other purpose than starting the process of exitance, keeping whatever reason such a deity did so to himself/herself), if not a higher form of spiritualism.

For those of you atheists who find this concept inherently repulsive, we must remember that while physical reality must obey the laws and logic of physics (such as "all things must have a cause"), metaphysics does not. In places where the very foundation of physics is self-contradictory, metaphysics takes over, it is only natural. Since "god" or "deism" is a metaphysical concept, it doesn't have to follow the laws or logic of physics.

HOWEVER, If we accept some measure of divine intervention, it cannot breach physical reality in such a manner that violates the laws or logic of physics (occam's razor and obserational data strongly support this). So thus both physics and metaphysics have their own place and are unable to violate one another's space for the simple reason that they can't explain phenomenae on the other "side."

SO, MY BELIEF SYSTEM:
(on to matters of faith and outlook, not necessarily having theoretical or factual basis)

Deistic Humanist Existentialism

To me, the universe was created by a deistic entity that has spiritual properties. Whether sentience is within the bounds of physics or outside of it within the bounds of metaphysics is not clear. Thus, while I feel that sentience and some measure of spirituality is both true and is beyond physics and entering metaphysics, I recognize that I may very well be wrong and may never know the answer (If I'm right, I might know, if I'm wrong there MUST be nothing after death and thus I will never know :-) ). I find that such a deity as I have described does not convey its reason for creation or our sentience in a manner that we can successfuly discern from falacy. THUS, I believe that we must create our own meaning in the universe on an individual and a universal scale. We do this through our daily actions, our ethics, our choices, our lives, our civilization's saga, etc. (Humanist Existentialism). Thus I do believe that our ethics reflects our view of ourselves and the universe as a whole and believe that we should do that which is best for humanity and life (thus finding ethics in a nihilistic universe is possible in my belief. But ethics cannot exist in a nihilistic universe. AH, but the universe is not in fact devoid of meaning, for we know that at least sentient humans inhabit it!).

Thus I manage to find optimism in a universe which I believe to be devoid of inherent meaning that we are capable of comprehending other than that which can be uncovered by the pursuits of science. If anything science and exploration expand our understanding of what small semblance of inherent meaning the universe possesses. Not only that, but this exploration also fuels humanity's own process for the creation of meaning where none inherently existed to our knowledge. Thus we continue to create meaning for ourselves and our universe through our exploration of science.

Overall, my belief system is both optimistic and somewhat disapointing to many (there's a god, but you can't understand what he's trying to tell you, assuming "god" even bothers to try to tell you anything.). The only things that bring you closer to true understanding are the experience received from life and the exploration of the cosmos.

OK, I'm done. I've always wondered how the disparate views out there would see this.

posted 11-15-98 02:15 PM ET            

I do not believe, but I don't say science has the right answer all the time. Still, I can't resist answering q 1:

"1.Where did the universe come from ?"

First, others (I think DJ, for example) have said that you could ask the same question about god. If you have an answer to that one, why not the same answer for the universe ?

posted 11-16-98 12:10 AM ET            

listen: if you've read "Contact" by the Great Sagan, you'll think this is familiar:
take Occam's razor, which is the simplest explanation for everything is usually right. Would there be a universe where everything was completely random, no order at all, with every particle ramming into each other and not following any particular scheme. Or, would there be another universe, where every bit of chaos actually has a point in the grand scheme of things? where things have a point, where everything has a place, almost as if it were a fractal...

posted 11-16-98 12:29 AM ET            

IMHO, it is not a valid argument to state that simply because it cannot be explained in Physics as we know it today, therefore it must be God/Deity/Metaphysics.

Who knows if we may be able to explain it in physics one day?

Somebody once said "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one". Man has always looked to the heavens to explain away the unexplainable. Why? Because it makes him feel comfortable. Doesn't mean he has always been right.

P.S. I believe in the presence of a "higher being" of some sort. But I also believe that it is entirely possible that I am wrong.

posted 11-16-98 11:49 AM ET            

Yes, it's also true that religion has led to war, and other evils. However, this usually comes about through manipulation of religion. During the Medieval times, evil men manipulated religion to suit their own purposes. As long as we live on this earth, men will continue to commit evil. This does not make it right. Everything in this world can, and probably has been abused to suit man's own purposes. To blame this on religion instead of the abusers of religion is wrong as well.

Tolls: Sorry, if you look at the sun for hours, you go blind. I should hope that 70,000 people know the difference between staring at the sun too long, and a miracle. Also, the people gathered there were not expecting a miracle of the sun, just a miracle. There were also many people gathered there to debunk the whole issue. These are the people who gave the greatest testimony - doctors, lawyers, scientists. Even people standing around their house not even aware of what the miracle was saw it.

Roland: Special effects crews in the 1900s? I don't think so. Not on that scale. Also, Lenin is pumped with formaldehyde every day. In fact, he's turning a little green around the gills. I'm talking about lack of preservatives.

posted 11-16-98 12:17 PM ET            

So, assuming that there is an un-moved mover, and that there are subtle transgressions between the realms of physics and metaphysics (i.e. souls, sentience, etc...) It is possible that the realm of metaphysics can intercede into the physical realm. Personally, I do beleive that this occurs through "grand" miracles that only happen on occassion and convert large groups of people i.e. Fatima, etc... In addition, there are minor miracles throughout our life that also lead me to beleive that a God does exist. For instance, "Wow, isn't it lucky that my tire exploded just as I turned off the express way. I would've died had that happened at 70 mph!" There are too many little miracles like this in my own life to count. Though many of these would probably still be restricted to solely the physical realm, how could we distinguish between this and an event that is influenced by the metaphysical? Why couldn't they be metaphysical?

tOFfGI: The reason why I beleive that a God matters is this: Assume God exists. Assume that he takes an active role in the universe, and has a special bond with humans. When you connect with God, through prayer and other means, it enriches your life and allows you to grow spiritually. You become aware of so much more than just the daily "getting by". You acheive more balance, and through that balance, more understanding. It's a journey that becomes more rewarding with every step. I beleive that this is the meaning of life. Through a true and active beleif in God, you are able to influence life in a positive way. That's why it matters.

Andrew: You ask for miracles. I personally beleive that these occur. Yet, when they occur, people come up with a ludicrous reasons to discount them. Don't you think it would be a little presumptuous to ask the most supreme being in the universe to come down to your house and perform a major miracle just for you? Even when he performs a miracle, and thousands upon thousands witness, even devout atheists, we still refuse to beleive? Why?

God Bless....

posted 11-16-98 12:28 PM ET            

BoomBoom: God created the physical process to create the universe. The way he chose to do this is through the Big Bang. If I want to drink a glass of water, water does not instantly drop into my mouth. I have to complete a process. I get up, get a glass, fill it with water, and drink it. I beleive that God could have created it instantly, but instead he chose to create the physical laws and use those to create the universe. Why? I have no idea. Where did God come from? I have no idea. I only need know that He exists.

Personally, I see God as the collection of all that is good throughout the physical and metaphysical realms. I guess it would be a state we cannot yet define. For what state is goodness? your soul? This is the state of heaven. I beleive that when we die, we become one with God in this state.

posted 11-16-98 12:32 PM ET            

Seriously, I fail to see evidence for the facts about miracles. What about the atheists witnessing them ? Can you tell me one ? Where is the evidence for all your miracles, except "70000 people have seen it" ?

On your minor miracles, I'd consider them coincidence. But if you want to see a miracle, you will see one...

"Don't you think it would be a little presumptuous to ask the most supreme being in the universe to come down to your house and perform a major miracle just for you?"

Raising a good point: How does good select those who are served with a miracle, if it's not for everyone ?

"I beleive that this is the meaning of life."

posted 11-16-98 12:47 PM ET            

Atheist Testimonial from Dr. Almeida Garrett, professor of Coimbra:

The sun had broken through the thick layer of clouds . . . it seemed to be drawing all eyes and I saw it as a disc with a clean cut rim, luminous and shining, but which did not hurt the eyes . . . it gave light and heat . . . the clouds did not obscure the light of the sun . . . one could fix one's eyes on this brazier of heat and light without pain in the eyes or blinding of the retina . . . The sun's disc . . . spun around on itself in a mad whirl . . . then . . . whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight ... There were changes of color in the atmosphere .... looking at the sun I noticed everything around was becoming darkened.

Professor Garrett ends his testimony with these words: "... All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me ...
It is for others to interpret and explain them."

If you want more information, read the book Fatima - From the Beginning by John de Marchi . If you don't beleive the books, you can try to hunt up the original newspaper clippings and photos.

Assume both a physical and metaphysical world. To live completely in one or the other, I would argue, is to live a life of imbalance. Therefore you do need religion to live a balanced life. I also beleive that God is part, and most of, the meaning of life, with the other significant chunk being other human beings. Without God, and without each other, I beleive that there would be no meaning to life other than to live as a rudimentary animal.

posted 11-16-98 08:09 PM ET            

BoomBoom:
"God is just there for people who don't want to face up to the reality that when you die"

How does this explain deism? Deists, such as myself, do not believe that there IS an afterlife, although we may still remotely hope for it to be so, since the possibility does exsist. Afterall, as a good scientist, you must admit that anything you believe COULD be incorrect.

Ok, concerning the wealth of resonse to my earlier statements:

Octopus: You ask why there needs to necessarily be a "sentient" supernatural force (a deity) as the "un-moved mover."
Answer: You don't. You also don't need it to be non-sentient either. Since you've exited the realm of physics and entered the realm of meta-physics, you, as a human using human logic can't have any sure idea one way or the other as to whether a deity is in fact the reason you're here. So I suppose that would make me agnostic. However, I happen to believe by faith (realizing that there is NO evidence to back up my claim and thus I have at least an equal chance of being wrong as being right, since there isn't any evidence against it either) that this meta-phsyical "cause without the need for a cause" may in fact be a sentient being. I HEAVILY doubt myself, because I realize the extent to which this is motivated by my prejudice. It IS possible to believe either way but not possible to be certain. Occam's razor is nice, but it only reflects probabilities, not certainties (occam's razor is wrong a whole lot, it's used because it's right more often than wrong). In addition, occam's razor only operates within our own physical reality.

For those who point out that humans simply haven't discovered the physics (or alternate physics) to explain the multiverse or even a higher order of existance, and only in a matter of time we will discover the truth and have everything solved, there is the following:
In the realm of meta-physics (desribed as that which is fundamentally beyond human understanding, not that which we just haven't discovered yet), occam's razor and any other form of human logic don't necessarily have to work, since in the realm of metaphysics (since it is defined as being that which is beyond human understanding), you can break whatever rules of human logic you want (since human logic is simply a construct of the human brain and not a source of universal truth. . .). It is HUMAN LOGIC that can't think beyond the concept of infinite cause and effect. The human brain simply can't handle there being infinite cause and effect. It doesn't make ANY sense. Sure, we understand the CONCEPT of infinite cause and effect, but it is in other ways dealing with the infinite that our logic breaks down.

So you see, it is not the meta-physical description of existance which brakes down as you proceed infinitely away from humanity (since meta-physics, that which we just don't understand can break whatever rules of our understanding it wants), but the physical description. Physics keeps on asking, "OK, that's great, but what came before that?"

Metaphysics doesn't have to answer that question once you leave physics. It simple IS. We can't understand it, so what? That's because our brains are too small or whatever. As far as we can tell, the most infinite form of reality that exists does so "just because". But you see, metaphysics has an answer to "just because", it says something is operating there that is fundamentally beyond our understanding. It doesn't necessarily have to be a deity, but it could be. Metaphysics could be EITHER theistic/deistic OR atheistic, WE CAN'T TELL.

On spiritualism: There are those of the religious persuasion that would then tell us that they have more than simply faith in the deistic/theistic solution because of ways in which a deity or "god" has touched their lives. Buddists would then argue that no deity has touched their lives, because spiritualism can exist independently of a deity (metaphysics working at a level not understandable to humanity, or perhaps simply some matter of physical reality which we CAN understand, but just haven't yet. We can't tell which or even if it actually exists until we get there with our knowledge.). However, theists would have us beleive that this spiritual connection has a distinctly personal character and suggests the existance of a deity. Who knows, either side could be correct. Occam's razor would suggest that the spiritualists are wrong, and thus we could accept that probability is working against them, but then again, occam's razor, which is only a statement of probabilities and not certainties, has been wrong before many times (Newton-vs-Einstein and Maxwell's equations-vs-the "ether" theory to name but a very few). So while someone may believe in spiritualism (or not) is it only healthy to have a certain doubt about the validity of your belief.

posted 11-17-98 07:14 AM ET            

I have no idea as well. But if you say god gives mesning to your life, and you don't know the meaning of god, what's the meaning of your life ?

On Fatima, I looked it up in a catholic dictionary on church and believe. Even there, they say that 3 children had an appearance, and 70.000 people saw "atmospheric phenomenons". Fatima has been disputed even within the catholic church (though it is a very catholic miracle with the virgin mary etc). There are some catholic fundamentalists who say it is the work of demons. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a skeptic stance on it in a quick search - the web is crowded with fatima-believers.

DHE: "and, if the believers are correct, the non believers have already chosen their fate."

I don't know for the various sects, but for the catholic "sect", this is not so clear. Agnostics and even atheists accepting unconditional ethics are not under the .. ehm.. anathema or so, if I remember the dogma correctly.

The last thing is really interesting. They say there can't be a thing like atheist ethics. The argument is therefore that an outspoken atheist by unconditionally accepting ethics is in the depth of his conscience endorsing god and just misinterpreting what he/she is doing.

Aga1: "Why dose a person that seen a miricle need to prove himself thats what his faith is for ?"

posted 11-17-98 08:13 PM ET            

1. The relation of the meaning of god to the meaning of life

2. Ahteist Systems of Ethics

My answers:

1. Yes, that is PRECISELY the case, you cannot be sure what the meaning of your life is. You cannot be certain what the meaning of god or what meaning any possible god bestowed upon the universe. Even those that claim to "know" the meaning of the universe as given by god are divided into thousands of different religious belief systems and sects. In the end, it is possible that one of them has the right answer, but there is no good way to tell which (or the much greater possibility that all of them are wrong).

Thus, in our unique human situation, it doesn't really matter whether there is a god or there isn't, he hasn't given us much of a clear universal picture of what he's all about now has he? (I'm sure the proponents of at least 10 different religious sects will answer this question that he has, and then each will, in turn, give a different answer :-) ). So, the way I look at it, even if there were a god, we're still stuck not knowing the true meaning bestowed to the universe by such a god (assuming that such a deity cared enough to bestow a special meaning to universe or humanity in particular. Belief systems that focus on how this-or-that deity created all for OUR benifit and gave US, we humans, specific and central meaning, are admittedly QUITE self-indulgent).

So, in the case there is a god, we do not know what he/she has in store for us or what meaning we are bestowed. AND, in the case of no god (atheism), then there is no inherent "meaning" bestowed upon creation or humanity to begin with, so whether we understand it is irrelevant, there's nothing there to understand.

Given these conditions of "relative nihilism" as I once termed it, we are forced by our nature to create our own meaning for our lives and our civilization. We, as individuals and as the whole of humanity create our own meaning through our day to day actions and through the actions ourselves as a whole. We both give ourselves meaning and give the universe meaning (which it did not have inherently that we can tell) through the exploration of our lives and the universe around us. Thus humanity has a very great ability, to create meaning. We do this through the arts (creation of meaning), through the sciences (by giving interpretation and meaning to natural phenomenae), and actions of our civilization.

Thus art creates meaning where nothing existed, science creates meaning for the universe in the eyes of humanity, and our actions define ourselves and our meaning.

2. Atheistic Ethics spawn naturally from the above statements concerning meaning. If we bestow meaning to ourselves based upon our own actions, our views, our art, and our science, particularly when considering humanity as a whole, then we could technically design whatever system of ethics we want. However, whatever system of ethics we bestow on ourselves will reflect and define the meaning we have given to ourselves. Thus, HUMANIST Existentialism is the belief that it is only natural to create a system of ethics which serves all humans in the most optimal fashion, thus maximizing the meaning of humanity as a whole.

Thus, the Humanist Existentialist outlook teaches us that since our actions reflect who we are, we ought to establish who we want to be and perform actions that prescribe to that meaning for ourselves. Those who realize that humanity defines itself by its actions as a whole and individually and sees that the driven goal of humanity is to explore their lives and realizes that all other humans have the same goal as them, decide it is prudent to work with others toward the same goal.

It also follows that it is less benifitial for oneself to do harm to others than to help others, because in helping others, you are in turn helped. Our entire economic system is based upon this principal. By doing work for society, you recieve payment, which in then can be used to pay for the work of others for your good. It is true that modern capitalist economies are no longer so simplistic, but all those who contribute to society through their work are providing a service, which society (based heavily upon laws of supply and demand for what you have given), pays you back. Thus, even the foul of nature realize that it is best to serve their fellow man and in turn be served. Of course, there ARE those, and many at that, who attempt to take advantage of the good-natured. When they do so, however, they face a tit-for-tat system which we call justice (assuming law enforcement is working properly).

Game theory research in the matter of ethics, as concerns prisoner's dilemna, has found that most efficient method of ethics for "getting ahead in the world" so to speak, the method that maximizes gain over loss, is the tit-for-tat method (as it has been termed by game theorists). The way tit-for-tat works is that you always do that which is best for both you and everyone else until someone else does something that is purposely harmful to you. At that point, you then do something harmful to them and continue until they have done something helpful to you. Once they have done something helpful to you, you then do that which is helpful for them. Thus you start off with cooperation, exercise justice on those that attempt to take advantage of you, and are willing to forgive when those who have taken advantage of you start cooperating again. This ethical strategy has been found to be amazingly more effective than the any other (the two extreme ethics systems were things where you would try and always take advantage of the other side or always attempt to cooperate, even when the other side took advantage of you or purposely harmed you). Statistically, there's no way to beat the system, it just works.

posted 11-17-98 08:33 PM ET            

Fact: Universe is a hell of a lot of energy.

Problem: Where did all that energy come from? Law of conservation of energy says you can't get something from nothing.

Response: The universe is infinite

Theological Claim: God is infinite

Natural assertion: Either the universe IS God, or is an extionsion of God

Fact: Science can only operate on quantifiable, measurable, and/or observable phenomena

Problem: Beginning of the universe cannot be observed, and quantifying it is not truly possible

Obvious result: Science can neither prove nor disprove that God created the universe

Counterpoint: Neither can religion prove anything, since religion is by definition not a system of logic

Fact: People, be they "believer" or "non-believer" have a certain view of life that they feel to be "correct"

Observation: Heisenberg's principles state that observing an event also affects the event

Correlation: Human viewpoint upon the world is a function of that persons perceptions, meaning that events have different meanings as interpreted by different psyches

Half-baked resulting hypothesis: There is no such thing as right and wrong, there is only opinion

Simple response: There is such a thing as right and wrong.

Contrapositive: It is the case that there exists no such thing as right and wrong.

Thus: If I state there is right and wrong, and you believe otherwise, I must in your mind be wrong.

Conclusion: Stating that there is no such thing as right and wrong is a contradiction.

Moral: Don't cast your pearls before swine... and while you're at it, don't pay attention to other swine's pearls, just keep your own mind on your own pearls and let everyone else figure out their own situation.

Final statement: I guess you'll find out when you die... of course, then it's too late to change your mind.

Am I religious, atheist, or agnostic?: It doesn't matter... I know where I stand... do you?

posted 11-18-98 11:54 AM ET            

In regards to your first point, on the meaning of Life and the meaning of the universe, you must recognize that these are two separate issues. The meaning of life I speak about deals specifically with your own life. The meaning of the universe deals with the grand scheme of all creation. While I beleive that it is impossible to fathom the meaning of the universe, you can find the meaning of your life.

You're correct in the fact that if you ask the proponents of all the major religious sects for a meaning of life that each will give you a different answer. However, does that make each sects viewpoint false? I would argue that the meaning of life varies from one individual to the next. One person may be called to be a owner of a large corporation, while another may be called to be a janitor. Does this make either calling wrong?

As for it not making a difference whether or not there is a God, I beleive that you are wrong. Have you ever sat in prayer to God and thought about what your meaning of life should be? If you are open to God, I beleive that he will give you direction. I realize that you may have tried this, and did not receive a grand revelation that reveals every aspect of your life in detail. However, God is subtle. He will answer you if you ask. You just have to be receptive. If you truly open yourself up during prayer, afterwards you will have a more defined view of the meaning of your life.

Other than prayer, you can also look to the church's teachings on the general meaning of life. Through these teachings, you get the broad meaning that applies to everyone. Do not kill, steal, lie, etc... Although this is a large portion of the "meaning of life", the church cannot provide you with your individual meaning. This is what prayer is used for. However, prayer is only useful if you are willing to listen to God.

Art, science, music, etc... can provide fulfillment and provide meaning to the artist, patron of the arts, scientist, etc...
it does not provide for an all encompassing meaning. I can fill my life with art, science, etc... and still lead a shallow life devoid of meaning.

posted 11-18-98 02:15 PM ET            

I believe (note the use of this word) that religion is something that people must seek out on their own if they feel the need. It is not something that needs to be preached to every passerby. I truly dislike mormons or JW's that knock on my door... not because they are religious, but because they feel the need to try to invade my life with their own personal beliefs. If someone wants to believe in God (or a god or gods) then that is their right, but don't expect your personal beliefs to have any real bearing on mine.

posted 11-18-98 02:37 PM ET            

I have a feeling that within the next hundred years the RC church in particular will be made to repent on their decisions that they make now. With one word the Pope can change how people all over the world live, and as the clergy (especially in the vatican) are completly out of touch with the real world, only bad things can happen.