- 1,357
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
Alright so two things compel me to believe in a deity: causation and creation. First, I operate on the premise that every action has to have a cause. From this we start going back in history and time. We go back hundreds, thousands, millions of years retracing evolution (which I believe in.. lol) and we get to the creation. The scientific explanation is the big bang theory - the notion that the universe was a hot dense mass that expanded (and continute to expand). I was unsatisfied with this based on the simple question of "Where did this dense mass or atom or w/e come from?" Answer: "Well it was just there...". Ok, well based on the premise of causation that im operating on, this doesnt fly. The creationist explanation of a divine being (who, by nature, doesnt need a cause and exists on its own accord) seemed just as, if not more plausable. In fact, accepting the big bang theory as the sole explanation of the universe's origin requires just as much faith as the creationist argument. The leap of faith here would lie with the fact that you assume this mysterious ball of mass just exists and always had existed and no further questioning. Logically, when deciding between these two aspects, I moved towards the existence of a deity since it addressed the causal issue (since, it needs no cause) and the origin issue (in my opinion, equal to or better than the big bang theory).
On a sidenote, I, in no way, reject the big bang theory. I believe that they actually compliment each other. That the "Let there be light" could have easily been the big bang itself.
I think so. I think a lot of religious people ARENT logical - perhaps most. That they accept religion as dogma and are raised into it with no consideration of the matter (Jesus Camp the documentary does an excellent job with examining the indoctrination of the youth). However, for the most part, I haven't seen any major tenets of religion that directly conflict with any of the axioms of logic.
Tough question. Christianity taken as is says that 'Jesus is the way' or basically something along the lines of believing in Jesus is the only way to heaven. Honestly, I dont think it would work exactly like that. If it did, it would conflict with a lot of what Jesus says in the new testament and what God says in the old testament. I cant imagine a benevolent, all loving God condemning somebody to hell for eternity. It would conflict too directly with what the majority of the religion is entailed by. Basically, the cornerstone of the religion is the Standard Monotheistic Conception: One God, All powerful, All good, All knowing, etc. This is the start, Premise (1). Anything after that must follow from this premise. If it conflicts, one of three claims must be accepted: 1- The original premise is flawed and God does not exist. 2 - The claim at hand is false and no, they dont go to hell. 3 - We have insufficient understanding/information - Basically we dont know.
I don't think that it would be significant enough to dismiss the existence of God upon (since it conflicts with being All Good or Benevolent). We would be left with either 2 or 3. Sorry man, I know this isnt the best response you could get, but would you really take me seriously if I pretended like I knew all the answers..?
Thoughts... as in their validity? So we have to consider the possibility that they could in fact all believe the same religion just called by different names with different methods of reaching people. I mean Jesus was in the Qur'an except he was depicted as a prophet rather than as the cornerstone. They do have a lot in common - most strongly encourage prayer (whether its five times a day or if its called 'meditation'), most advocate peace/love as a general guideline of living (once again, exceptions. The Quran says that if you meet an infidel you would be required to either 1) convert them or if (1) fails, then 2) kill them..., but were talking very broad strokes).
As for why Christianity specifically, there are a few reasons. First off, there was very little that I disagreed with. Once I actually understood what it was about. It was presented to me as a completely different ideology than it actually is. The type of people that condemed getting high, drinking and sex as being sins werent exactly right. The bible warns of drinking being dangerous as it could allow you to do other, serious sins (ok fair enough), drugs arent mentioned (in fact, I think there are even a few passages. No premarital sex is VERY vague. I mean you can stretch it out of the text, but for example the biggest examples would be:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Times][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." [I Corinthians 7:9] [/font][/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Times][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body...Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said 'the two will become one flesh' ..." [I Corinthians 6:13-16[/font][/font]]
I mean, maybe.. But for the most part it says: dont be a prostitute, dont get prostitutes, dont have sex with animals, and dont be gay.
Second off as to why Christianity, was the structure. It seemed to me that you could remove Buddha and still have Buddhism. You could remove Mohammed and Islam would still exist. Shintoism and Daoism didnt rely heavily on a single being. However, Christianity without Jesus is nothing. Christianity is the belief in Jesus and God. This, to me, seemed like a strong quality that I'd expect to find in God (assuming there is one). It says believe in Jesus (=God) or thats it. Once again, it seemed like the people that would have it right would make it so that I'd have to believe in God.
Hm, hypocrite much? Haha, so hold on, let me get this straight. You (implicitly) state that you dont believe in God. Then criticize others for assuming that their beliefs are right. You consider these people to be ridiculous all while you are assuming that YOUR BELIEFS ARE TRUE. Haha come on man, think before you speak (type).
Lmao and slow down scientific progress? I'm a researcher at a think tank man. My JOB is to make scientific progress. My other jobs focus on creating academic research that get published in peer-reviewed journals. Don't come into this thread and assume im some religious stereotype. Thats why I made this. So, either contribute by making a legitimate claim, or stop wasting space.
Not necessarily. I dont think any religion can be encompassed ENTIRELY by logic. There has to be some element of faith given that there is just a lot that we dont know.
With specific regards to the bible, I think that a lot of it is subject to interpretation and that you can't, in fact, explain the whole thing using just logic. Why is that? Well, just think that if God were to make a book that would work as guidance to a lot of different people (hypothetically), it would have to mean different things to different people, right? I mean people live drastically different lives and find themselves in radically different circumstances throughout time, so how would the same book work to help so many people if what was said was only intended to be taken literally? My thoughts are that it can't. It would HAVE to contain elements that are subject to interpretation so as to have contextual worth. Hope this answered your question. If not, let me know, and I'll try again.
Well, ideally because it would be the truth. I think thats the goal of a lot of people - at least a lot of people that seriously think about this issue. If it were the truth, and God existed, you would want to know this and believe in him. Unfortunately, we cant know if this is the case or not. A lot of people think that they do and a lot of people do it for the wrong reasons (ie. say that theyre religious as a way to segregate themselves from society. Others claim that they have religious experiences that make them convinced that it is the truth.
If that answer isnt good enough, you can consider this (lol but not too much, its kind of bs). It's called Pascal's Wager. Initially posed by French philosopher Blaise Pascal in the mid to late 1600s. Consider the following.
It is at least conceivable that a God exists. Given this, there are four possible outcomes: (1)You believe in God and God turns out to exist, (2)You believe in God and God turns out not to exist, (3)You dont believe in God and God turns out to exist, and (4)You dont believe in God and God turns out not to exist. After this, consider the outcomes of each result. The outcomes are as follows:
(1) Believe-Exist: You go to heaven (infinite happiness)
(2) Believe-Doesnt Exist: Zero gain, maybe slight loss given that you wasted your time.
(3) Dont Believe-Exist: You go to hell (infinite pain)
(4) Dont Believe-Doesnt Exist: Zero gain, maybe slight gain given that you were right..? Who knows, basically its insignificant.
Well numbers 2 and 4 cancel out since theyre practically nothing. Youre left with with the possibility of infinite happiness or infinite pain. You multiply the probability of each outcome actually occurring with the result that would follow and you get your expected value. Given that its negative infinity and positive infinity, any number times this yields an expected value of negative and positive infinity respectively (no matter how small the possibility is). As a result, you would be foolish not to believe in God given these two outcomes. Well, what if you CANT believe in God. As in, you just dont believe he exists. You cant just make yourself believe right..? Well, Pascal said that you should live your life like somebody who believes in him. Go to church, pray, be good, etc etc etc. After a while, youll start to believe it.
^there are so so so so many objections to this from a formal logical perspecive that its nuts. Im not gonna get into them all now, but if youre interested, you have a basic starting point. I, personally, disagree with Pascal's Wager, but it was significant in history and at least worth knowing about.
_____
I'm tired and its taken me a long time to write this so Im taking a break. I'll be back to answer the rest and contribute what I can.
