To shit with respect!

[Trifoilum]

That hole will never be filled, not even with religion.

Yeah.

That is the tricky part; attempting to fill it with most things (love, faith, belief, achievements, material goods, sex, family, independence, anything) activated the trap; of attachment, of security, of identity.
One religion -does- that, actually; Buddhism and all its branches, but even -theirs- were more like accepting, embracing that hole as part of ourselves, rather than filling it.

Unless you go back in time and become an altar-boy.

Ew. those aren't something I want to fill my hole. (unless we're seeing a hot priest, in which case, COME TO ME FATHER AND FILL ME TO THE BRIM)

 

[CindyLou]

hot priest?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm having a hard following you here.

Are you saying that anyone who believes in critical thinking doesn't think imagination is important? That anyone who doesn't believe in God also couldn't possibly believe in an orderly, intelligible universe? That an orderly intelligible universe can't be explained by anything other than the existence of God? That the entire universe and all of its incomprehensible distances is definitely orderly and intelligible? That order and intelligibility, time, consciousness, everything we know and experience… isn't simply an interpretation of a single phenomena spontaneously occurring amongst infinite others in a stranger, more terrifying cosmos where our 'order' is merely one of an infinite number of aesthetics-- expressed in an incomprehensible, unimaginable, causeless, orderless, infinite chaos?

I'm also having a hard time figuring out exactly what you think God is. Are we talking about a deity that requires worship? Did he send his son down to die on the cross? Is he some sort of cosmic emperor? Some kind of particle or naturally occurring force? What attributes God must have in order for someone to actually know that it's really God and not something else?

You claim to be Christian so I'm assuming you mean the Christian God, whose son was Jesus, who created the Earth in six days, who was wrathful and spoke to Moses, and who is a character in the Bible, etc… and then, even if there is order in every single part of every single universe that stretches infinitely beyond what any human being could possibly comprehend, how does any of that render the 'theory' of THAT God's existence somehow more credible than the notion that Santa gave the universe to humans as a present for all of the good things he knew that we would do? Because the meaning of life is more important than getting presents? Says who?

An infinite number of universes is truly imaginary - because we have no grounds for verifying the existence of any universe other than our own. Theoretically it is possible: which means that it is possible for us to comprehend such a possibility. Given that we can conceive of its possibility, implies that if there were more universes, their existence is also according to some order.

If you are having trouble figuring out what my concept of God is, I would guess it is because my concept does not fit with your prejudiced (pre-judged) demeaning concept of what Catholics believe God to be ("cosmic santa clauses and such like). Whatever causes the universe - or multiple universes to exist - whatever that is, is what I call God. And being Christian, yes, I also think that that universal cause of existence can operate beyond universal, abstract causality, but also in the very particular and human - not by the descension of that cause to particulars, but by the assumption of particulars to that universal cause. (ie. God assumed a human nature - Christ).

As for whether it is more reasonable to believe in multiple universes, or that there is a universal cause of existence - it seems more reasonable to believe that something which is known to exist exists under some unfamiliar causality, than to believe that something exists (multiple universes) whose existence can in no way be verified by us.

 

[Billy]

An infinite number of universes is truly imaginary - because we have no grounds for verifying the existence of any universe other than our own. Theoretically it is possible: which means that it is possible for us to comprehend such a possibility. Given that we can conceive of its possibility, implies that if there were more universes, their existence is also according to some order.

If you are having trouble figuring out what my concept of God is, I would guess it is because my concept does not fit with your prejudiced (pre-judged) demeaning concept of what Catholics believe God to be ("cosmic santa clauses and such like). Whatever causes the universe - or multiple universes to exist - whatever that is, is what I call God. And being Christian, yes, I also think that that universal cause of existence can operate beyond universal, abstract causality, but also in the very particular and human - not by the descension of that cause to particulars, but by the assumption of particulars to that universal cause. (ie. God assumed a human nature - Christ).

As for whether it is more reasonable to believe in multiple universes, or that there is a universal cause of existence - it seems more reasonable to believe that something which is known to exist exists under some unfamiliar causality, than to believe that something exists (multiple universes) whose existence can in no way be verified by us.

You know whats funny? I am probably better at being a Catholic than you are, and I dont even believe in God... but I certainly wouldnt mish-mash all the tenets of the religion and keep it in name only... whats the point?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You just stated the key difference between science and faith. Namely, that even theoretical stuff like quantum physics or string theory or whatever is based upon observable phenomena or previously gathered information. There is no evidence to suggest that god exists or would even need to exist..

On the contrary, every aspect of everything we observe is subject to some causality. This makes science possible. To posit that the very existence of things is subject to causality is entirely consistent with the rest of our science. The key difference is that of all the forms of causality that we have identified theoretically, they can all be practically applied by us: that is we can make use of all forms of causality - with one exception. The cause of the existence of things is something we cannot harness - so that this cause is supremely useless to us: for we can in no way employ it to cause things to exist.

I think to posit the existence of God - that is to posit a causality which causes existence - is more correctly called an impractical theory, than an unnecessary one; unless one be a complete utilitarian.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You know whats funny? I am probably better at being a Catholic than you are, and I dont even believe in God... but I certainly wouldnt mish-mash all the tenets of the religion and keep it in name only... whats the point?

As far as I know, I have not mish mashed any of the actual Catholic tenets. Although I do often pointedly dismiss those things which popular culture mistakenly presumes to be tenets of the Catholic religion.

 

[Billy]

As far as I know, I have not mish mashed any of the actual Catholic tenets. Although I do often pointedly dismiss those things which popular culture mistakenly presumes to be tenets of the Catholic religion.

You mean you believe that when you eat the Eucharist its literally the body of Christ? That Adam and Eve were the 1st people. That contraception is sinful? That sex is for procreation only? Like those?

 

[CindyLou]

An infinite number of universes is truly imaginary - because we have no grounds for verifying the existence of any universe other than our own. Theoretically it is possible: which means that it is possible for us to comprehend such a possibility. Given that we can conceive of its possibility, implies that if there were more universes, their existence is also according to some order.

If you are having trouble figuring out what my concept of God is, I would guess it is because my concept does not fit with your prejudiced (pre-judged) demeaning concept of what Catholics believe God to be ("cosmic santa clauses and such like). Whatever causes the universe - or multiple universes to exist - whatever that is, is what I call God. And being Christian, yes, I also think that that universal cause of existence can operate beyond universal, abstract causality, but also in the very particular and human - not by the descension of that cause to particulars, but by the assumption of particulars to that universal cause. (ie. God assumed a human nature - Christ).

As for whether it is more reasonable to believe in multiple universes, or that there is a universal cause of existence - it seems more reasonable to believe that something which is known to exist exists under some unfamiliar causality, than to believe that something exists (multiple universes) whose existence can in no way be verified by us.

wait wait wait wait wait!

Hold on a minute.

Are you telling me that *gasp* Christianity doesn't teach anything about a Cosmic Sky Daddy Santa Clause Wizard Guy that sits in the clouds that created everything 6,000 years ago? But, but, my books said that is what the Christian religion teaches?!

My head is spinning.

 

[Billy]

wait wait wait wait wait!

Hold on a minute.

Are you telling me that *gasp* Christianity doesn't teach anything about a Cosmic Sky Daddy Santa Clause Wizard Guy that sits in the clouds that created everything 6,000 years ago? But, but, my books said that is what the Christian religion teaches?!

My head is spinning.

We had a thread here not so long ago asking people if they believed that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead... the resounding majority said no. Dont you think thats kind of an important one if youre going to claim to be a christian?

Likewise, if you are a catholic and don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve... whats the point of a Baptism?

 

[CindyLou]

We had a thread here not so long ago asking people if they believed that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead... the resounding majority said no. Dont you think thats kind of an important one if youre going to claim to be a christian?

Maybe the majority of people on the forum are not Christians? Or was the question just for xtians? Weird.

Lol yeah, that one is definitely a requirement.

 

[Patrick Williams]

Ok, I have to ask an honest question here. I am not a scientist nor am I deeply versed in quantum physics but, from what little I have read, my understanding is that the deeper science has gone in the micro-universe, the more wild and unnatural it seems.

For example, a quirk can exist at two different places simultaneously. Also, things will actually change based on the observer and then there is the idea of a holographic universe, etc...Also, from a mathematical basis, some theories of science posit there may be as many as 11 parallel universes and that, outside of our 4 dimensions, you could invert a basketball inside-out without tearing or cutting it.

Now, to be honest, I do not understand all of this nor do I have the time, intellectual capacity or desire to delve into these things myself (or I would be an INTJ, wouldn't I? : - ) but here is the point and the honest question:

Doesn't science, itself, now postulate that the reality that we see is only the tip of the iceberg of a greater unseen reality that we are only starting to get glimpses of through quantum physics and other scientific disciplines?

People often talk about empirical evidence not supporting anything but this existence but, as we get deeper into science, isn't that no longer the case? Doesn't science itself even acknowledge a mysterious world out there in the created realm that we cannot understand yet (quantum physics)? If this is the case, why is it so hard to accept an invisible portion of the created realm and an uncreated realm (the Creator)?

Keep it simple, please, I am not a scientist - what do you all understand?

 

[Billy]

Maybe the majority of people on the forum are not Christians? Or was the question just for xtians? Weird.

Lol yeah, that one is definitely a requirement.

It was for Christians I think, if I remember... people were even explaining that they were Christians but did not believe in it literally... I was all like wtf?

 

[Billy]

Ok, I have to ask an honest question here. I am not a scientist nor am I deeply versed in quantum physics but, from what little I have read, my understanding is that the deeper science has gone in the micro-universe, the more wild and unnatural it seems.

For example, a quirk can exist at two different places simultaneously. Also, things will actually change based on the observer and then there is the idea of a holographic universe, etc...Also, from a mathematical basis, some theories of science posit there may be as many as 11 parallel universes and that, outside of our 4 dimensions, you could invert a basketball inside-out without tearing or cutting it.

Now, to be honest, I do not understand all of this nor do I have the time, intellectual capacity or desire to delve into these things myself (or I would be an INTJ, wouldn't I? : - ) but here is the point and the honest question:

Doesn't science, itself, now postulate that the reality that we see is only the tip of the iceberg of a greater unseen reality that we are only starting to get glimpses of through quantum physics and other scientific disciplines?

People often talk about empirical evidence not supporting anything but this existence but, as we get deeper into science, isn't that no longer the case? Doesn't science itself even acknowledge a mysterious world out there in the created realm that we cannot understand yet (quantum physics)? If this is the case, why is it so hard to accept an invisible portion of the created realm and an uncreated realm (the Creator)?

Keep it simple, please, I am not a scientist - what do you all understand?

Its a good question, but it falls for the God of the Gaps argument. Which only complicates things. If there is an intelligent creator force, you have to explain where that came from too. Just because we dont understand something today doesnt mean it will forever be unknown, hence God. They thought plagues were caused by demons in the middle ages. Because we couldnt fathom that there was a microbiological world. I assume that should we survive long enough we will slowly chip away at it until its not quite so mysterious. Even though there are brilliant minds out there far greater than you or I, nobody currently really understands Quantum mechanics, they just prove that it exists via mathematical equations.

 

[CindyLou]

Likewise, if you are a catholic and don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve... whats the point of a Baptism?

What does baptism have to do with Adam and Eve?

 

[Billy]

What does baptism have to do with Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve are the originators of Original/Ancestral sin.

 

[CindyLou]

Adam and Eve are the originators of Original/Ancestral sin.

The doctrine of original sin is not universal to the Christian faith, nor is it even essential. So, I don't know why someone couldn't reject it and still be baptized if they wanted to. Though, it would be odd to reject it and still baptize your infant. So, I see where it would be an issue for a Catholic.

 

[Billy]

The doctrine of original sin is not universal to the Christian faith, nor is it even essential. So, I don't know why someone couldn't reject it and still be baptized if they wanted to. Though, it would be odd to reject it and still baptize your infant. So, I see where it would be an issue for a Catholic.

Well its definitely essential to Catholics. If you don't get baptized as a catholic you basically stay in purgatory forever. And the whole point of a baptism is to wash away original sin, so whats the point if you don't believe in it? I would say Baptism is essential for Christianity.. and the point of baptism is original sin... and original sin comes form adam and eve. Do you see where I am personally confused?

 

[Jack]

Billy, if I've understood your position here, you're saying that it offends/offended your sensibilities that people were discussing religion in a carefree way, and it annoyed you.

You're solution was ridicule and verbal abuse to 'balance things out'.

Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to be using your over-sensitivity to justify outright bullying.

If I'm mistaken, please clarify, but this is the impression I've gotten reading over the thread.

Honestly, I don't buy a lot of crap I read on the internet, various religious ideas, aliens, and auras, and such, but I'm more than willing to take up a side I personally disagree with to keep abusive people from shoving their cynicism down another's throat (especially when the cynicism itself has little rational justification).

Identifying with the 'skeptical' materialist culture doesn't make you automatically correct, or others automatically wrong. You might be surprised what you learn by engaging people with an open mind. IRL I actually have some issues with organized religion as well, online though, the aggression seems to come mostly from the other side of this same coin.

 

[Billy]

Billy, if I've understood your position here, you're saying that it offends/offended your sensibilities that people were discussing religion in a carefree way, and it annoyed you.

You're solution was ridicule and verbal abuse to 'balance things out'.

Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to be using your over-sensitivity to justify outright bullying.

If I'm mistaken, please clarify, but this is the impression I've gotten reading over the thread.

Honestly, I don't buy a lot of crap I read on the internet, various religious ideas, aliens, and auras, and such, but I'm more than willing to take up a side I personally disagree with to keep abusive people from shoving their cynicism down another's throat (especially when the cynicism itself has little rational justification).

Identifying with the 'skeptical' materialist culture doesn't make you automatically correct, or others automatically wrong. You might be surprised what you learn by engaging people with an open mind. IRL I actually have some issues with organized religion as well, online though, the aggression seems to come mostly from the other side of this same coin.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

 

[Apone]

An infinite number of universes is truly imaginary - because we have no grounds for verifying the existence of any universe other than our own. Theoretically it is possible: which means that it is possible for us to comprehend such a possibility. Given that we can conceive of its possibility, implies that if there were more universes, their existence is also according to some order.

Why does being able to conceive of the possibility of infinite universes imply that their existence is according to some order? I also don't think that we can conceive of infinity, even though we can understand it as a concept. You don't think that there are things that are so complex, or so random, or so immeasurable that nothing could ever possibly penetrate them on any level?

If you are having trouble figuring out what my concept of God is, I would guess it is because my concept does not fit with your prejudiced (pre-judged) demeaning concept of what Catholics believe God to be ("cosmic santa clauses and such like).

No, it's actually because I don't really know you and I genuinely had no idea of what 'God' means to you… and I didn't say that you believed in God as a cosmic Santa Claus.

Whatever causes the universe - or multiple universes to exist - whatever that is, is what I call God. And being Christian, yes, I also think that that universal cause of existence can operate beyond universal, abstract causality, but also in the very particular and human - not by the descension of that cause to particulars, but by the assumption of particulars to that universal cause. (ie. God assumed a human nature - Christ).

Which particulars would those be, exactly?

It goes without saying that if God were only what it is in the Bible then the religion would be much easier to dismiss (well, for some people anyways)… but still, if you're saying that God is 'the cause/the causing' and that it can be particular and human, then why couldn't it be the cosmic Santa Claus? Giving people presents is a nice thing to do.

As for whether it is more reasonable to believe in multiple universes, or that there is a universal cause of existence - it seems more reasonable to believe that something which is known to exist exists under some unfamiliar causality, than to believe that something exists (multiple universes) whose existence can in no way be verified by us.

I'm sure that you would agree that language is an excellent tool for someone who wants to acknowledge what they don't understand… you don't think that we could use language to acknowledge things that we could never understand, purely, as that and only that? You don't think that we can hold permanently vague notions of things that could never correspond to any possible 'form' of comprehension (using futuristic instruments or measuring devices or what-have-you), or that don't and could never have order? You don't believe that there are things out there that could tear the human mind completely apart?