Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]
[Login]
menu

"Who created God?"

<< First < Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next > Last >>

[Reply] #61
05-13-2015 07:36 PM
Yada Yada
Guest

P408370R wrote: Please refrain from attacking other people in the Religion subforum, especially if you are not contributing to the discussion.

Thank you. ^^

Alright you chubby festering oryx, sorry.

[Reply] #62
05-13-2015 07:37 PM
El Matas
Guest

Judicator wrote:

It isn’t the God of the Gaps though.


Yes it is:

Judicator wrote:
Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason even if you are to accept that it developed as such. If it is an instinct, a theist could easily explain that as a God given instinct and it would honestly make sense.



"“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


Judicator wrote:
I’m simply saying that even if there is an instinct like this, it doesn’t say anything about whether a God exists or not. I am not saying that “Because we don’t know where it came from a God did it”. Just that a God existing would also account for why it’s there too and the instinct existing is not evidence against him. It’s neutral to theism and atheism..


You don’t get to eat your cake and have it. The article provide gives a rational explanation as to why people believe in superstition, thus god is man made. This doesn’t prove god doesn’t exist, but nothing does, does it.


Judicator wrote:
I never once said this and I have no idea how you could have even interpreted out of anything I said.


What does this mean then? “Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason”


Judicator wrote:

It could have been created or inspired by a God. Or even alien life forms who seem like gods. I’m not saying this is what happened. Again, I’m saying The instinct existing does not point in any direction on the existence of God


Argument from ignorance. Or maybe it was Santa.

Judicator wrote:
It could have been. The instinct being there says nothing of his or their existence. The bolded is literally my entire point of the first post.

Since you couldn’t get my points right, I’m not going to bother reading the rest of your post since it has nothing to do with what I said.


Argument from ignorance. The instinct is most likely from evolutionary processes, so like I said before, this does not require god; claiming it does is a fallacy.

According to you what you said was maybe what could be, so don’t blame me. The only point that might not be correct is the first one, I’m eager to see what you meant, though.

[Reply] #63
05-13-2015 07:43 PM
El Matas
Guest

Tomie wrote:

Les Matadorss wrote:
The question of what was before the universe, right now, a nonsensical question. Nobody knows.



It’s not a nonsensical question. It’s actually a very important one.


What I mean by that is: It’s out of our reach right now.


-Tyreaus- wrote:

Tomie wrote:

Les Matadorss wrote:
The question of what was before the universe, right now, a nonsensical question. Nobody knows.



It’s not a nonsensical question. It’s actually a very important one.



The better question, which precedes that one, is: does something need to be before the universe? Big Bang cosmology puts the entire universe into a singularity at the onset. There’s nothing inherently saying that the energy contained within said singularity couldn’t have always been around. On the contrary, conservation of energy would point toward that very thing.



Religious person answering that question:“Yes."

Other person: “Why?"

RP: “Because there is... and in the bible...

[Reply] #64
05-13-2015 08:40 PM
Joined: 01-31-2008
Posts: 55,431
offline
Xehanort the Younger
Xehanort the Younger
Not the bald one
Rep: 344

El Matas wrote:
Yes it is:


No it isn’t because I’m not saying that “Because we don’t know how it happened a God must have done it." I’m saying “We don’t know how it happened but a God could be behind it."





"“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


Which isn’t what was done. As I said, the article in no way goes either direction to the question of God’s existence.




You don’t get to eat your cake and have it. The article provide gives a rational explanation as to why people believe in superstition, thus god is man made. This doesn’t prove god doesn’t exist, but nothing does, does it.



I can have and eat my cake. And no, the article provides a possible explanation for how superstition may have developed. It doesn’t say anything about the source of the instinct.



What does this mean then? “Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason”


It means that in evolutionary terms, we don’t develop useless things. For example, the whole feeling like you’re being watched is left over from shit like tigers lurking around and we had to be careful. We didn’t just develop it for no reason. It wasn’t developed because our imaginations created a danger and superstition. It developed because of something very real in the world. I believe I read things like yawning might be the same type of deal. Things that are not very beneficial don’t last long in the gene pool and things that are left over from evolution that are useless now had some use at some point in time.





Argument from ignorance. Or maybe it was Santa.


Argument from Fallacy. But sure, Maybe it was Santa. But Santa is Saint Nicholas, who was a Catholic. Who believed in God. If Catholics are creating things like instincts in human beings retroactively then that’s reason to believe God exists cool



Argument from ignorance. The instinct is most likely from evolutionary processes, so like I said before, this does not require god; claiming it does is a fallacy.

According to you what you said was maybe what could be, so don’t blame me. The only point that might not be correct is the first one, I’m eager to see what you meant, though.


Argument from fallacy. There is not enough evidence to claim it’s an instinct in the first place. It’s only a hypothesis.

Pointing out fallacies really doesn’t really help a discussion. If one is going to argue God does not exist then they are going to have to do better than “This instinct might exist."

But let’s assume for a moment that this instinct does exist, the problem isn’t so much IF it exists but WHY it exists. If it’s part of a purely natural process to say, explain phenomena then a personal earthly God likely does not exist. If it’s not a purely natural process to explain phenomena, then a personal God is certainly a possible explanation.

I suppose you don’t have to use the term God in the religious sense though. The scientific equivalent to a creator God is highly advanced aliens. You can replace “God” with “highly advanced aliens” if you want. Since we do not know if it’s purely natural or if there was intervention to create this instinct then we can’t really say it points one way or the other. We have to continue looking for answers. If you say, “we don’t know what was before the universe." then it would be unwise to rule out a God just because we may not have concrete evidence at the current time. The amount of evidence we have has no effect on what is actually true.

[Reply] #65
05-13-2015 08:46 PM
Joined: 06-24-2012
Posts: 12,907
offline
OrganizationXV
OrganizationXV
Reclaiming what's lost
Rep: 113

I’m just curious as to why it is that any God would benefit from us having this instinct.

[Reply] #66
05-13-2015 09:34 PM
Joined: 06-24-2014
Posts: 247
offline
Mr. King
Mr. King
Regular
Rep: 2

No one, he was just there he is the beginning.


__________________

[Reply] #67
05-13-2015 10:49 PM
Joined: 10-03-2012
Posts: 20,035
offline
Tomie
Tomie
Hi!
Rep: 127

-Tyreaus- wrote:

The better question, which precedes that one, is: does something need to be before the universe? Big Bang cosmology puts the entire universe into a singularity at the onset. There’s nothing inherently saying that the energy contained within said singularity couldn’t have always been around. On the contrary, conservation of energy would point toward that very thing.


Yes, because we know the universe as it is now came to being somehow. Even if you argue that the energy that created it is uncaused.


__________________

Alpha and Omega wrote:
Science is even bigger bullshit lol, they believe the big bang created everything from 2 atoms colliding together or some shit, they tried to do the same thing in 2008 spending 10 billion dollars doing it, but the risk was a very small black hole being made if failed, they failed and no black hole was created also.

[Reply] #68
05-13-2015 10:57 PM
Joined: 06-24-2012
Posts: 12,907
offline
OrganizationXV
OrganizationXV
Reclaiming what's lost
Rep: 113

Tomie wrote:

-Tyreaus- wrote:

The better question, which precedes that one, is: does something need to be before the universe? Big Bang cosmology puts the entire universe into a singularity at the onset. There’s nothing inherently saying that the energy contained within said singularity couldn’t have always been around. On the contrary, conservation of energy would point toward that very thing.


Yes, because we know the universe as it is now came to being somehow. Even if you argue that the energy that created it is uncaused.


There’s a law of conservation of mass as well, you know.

[Reply] #69
05-13-2015 11:10 PM
Joined: 04-01-2007
Posts: 20,050
offline
-Tyreaus-
-Tyreaus-
•¦|[The Author]|¦•
Rep: 182

Tomie wrote: Yes, because we know the universe as it is now came to being somehow. Even if you argue that the energy that created it is uncaused.



“As it is now”. I said the universe, not as it is in any particular status. That includes the singularity as its proposed initial state, the present moment, and its heat death.


__________________

The Golden Serpent

[Reply] #70
05-13-2015 11:17 PM
Joined: 11-23-2013
Posts: 14,043
offline
Maximum D
Maximum D
fuck with me you know i got it
Rep: 113

Bob Saget


__________________

[Reply] #71
05-13-2015 11:21 PM
Joined: 02-19-2015
Posts: 2,543
offline
Thar
Thar
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 30

Maximum D wrote: Bob Saget


The Tourettes guy created Bob Saget.


__________________

[Reply] #72
05-13-2015 11:49 PM
Joined: 01-13-2010
Posts: 4,291
offline
Super Perfect Cell Returns
Super Perfect Cell Returns
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 120

Here’s a thought: What if “creation” or the concept of “there needing to be a beginning to [insert any type of creation]” is just a concept that applies to humanity alone and not God.

To us there is a past, present, future; a beginning and an end but what if none of those apply to God? Perhaps in his existence there is no beginning and there is no end, it’s just there..


__________________

[Reply] #73
05-14-2015 02:39 PM
Joined: 01-16-2015
Posts: 409
offline
Corus
Corus
Regular
Rep: 3

When religious people state that God has always existed you must remember that there is no logic beyond the universe so impossible things like an entity always existing are actually possible outside the universe since there are no laws or concepts that say it couldnt happen.

This also means the Big Bang is possible since there is nothing outside the universe saying something cant just randomly boom into existence.

It reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where Brian and Stewie time traveled to before the universe existed(what) and Stewie stated there were no physics that could tell them what to do.


__________________

Formerly known as Kagami

[Reply] #74
05-15-2015 08:46 PM
El Matas
Guest

Mkay, so I finished reading the article.

Judicator wrote:
No it isn’t because I’m not saying that “Because we don’t know how it happened a God must have done it." I’m saying “We don’t know how it happened but a God could be behind it.“


I’m confused now. Are you asserting that god is behind this or aren’t you.

If you want to go with baseless statements that you’re not willing to stick to then why make them at all?

Judicator wrote: If it is an instinct, a theist could easily explain that as a God given instinct and it would honestly make sense.



What you’re basically saying is: ~ We don’t know what was before the the universe, so a theist can easily argue that it was god.~
This is a god of the gaps argument.

Let’s not try to act like the meaning of something isn’t what it is, that’s below you.


Judicator wrote:

El Matador wrote:


"“God of the gaps” is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God’s existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God’s existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


Which isn’t what was done. As I said, the article in no way goes either direction to the question of God’s existence.


No, not by the article, but it was by you.

Judicator wrote: If it is an instinct, a theist could easily explain that as a God given instinct and it would honestly make sense.





Judicator wrote:
I can have and eat my cake. And no, the article provides a possible explanation for how superstition may have developed. It doesn’t say anything about the source of the instinct.


What?

" A recent method of examining religious thought and behaviour links their ubiquity and the similarity of our beliefs to the ways in which human mental processes were adapted for survival in prehistoric times.

" First, when an event happens, we tend to assume that a living thing caused it. In other words, we assume agency behind that event. If you think of the sorts of events that might have happened in prehistoric times, it’s easy to see why a bias towards agency would be useful. A rustling of a bush or the snapping of a twig could be due to wind. But far better to assume it’s a lion and run away.

" The second trait is about how we view others. While living together in a tribe would have had many advantages for survival in prehistoric times, getting along with everyone would not always have been easy. Comprehending others’ behaviour requires you to understand their thoughts and beliefs, especially where these may be incorrect due to someone not knowing the full facts of a situation.

This is known as “theory of mind”. This idea says that we automatically assume that there are reasons behind others’ behaviour which we try to work out in order to better understand why they behave the way they do. Not having this ability has been proposed to underlie developmental disorders such as autism.

You may be wondering what these two hard-wired processes have to do with belief in gods. Imagine a pebble falling in the back of a cave. Our agency device tells us that someone caused that to happen. With nothing in evidence, could it be an invisible creature or a spirit? If so, why would it be sneaking around? To find out secrets about us or to discover if we are good or bad people?

Another example might be a volcanic eruption. In the absence of geological knowledge, our tribal ancestors' agency system would have ascribed this event to a person – but one that surely has superhuman ability. And why would they want to cause such destruction? Perhaps the eruption signified a punishment, perhaps because the tribe had not acted in accordance with the being’s wishes.


The source of this “instinct” is derived from years of evolutionary processes. Just like the eye has developed via evolution, it’s in a way similar. So it does talk about the source of the “instinct”.


Judicator wrote:
It means that in evolutionary terms, we don’t develop useless things. For example, the whole feeling like you’re being watched is left over from shit like tigers lurking around and we had to be careful. We didn’t just develop it for no reason. It wasn’t developed because our imaginations created a danger and superstition. It developed because of something very real in the world. I believe I read things like yawning might be the same type of deal. Things that are not very beneficial don’t last long in the gene pool and things that are left over from evolution that are useless now had some use at some point in time.


Let me break up the conversation so you get why you’re going in a circle:

Post #45:

Judicator wrote: Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason...


As you just clarified, what you mean is :
“It means that in evolutionary terms, we don’t develop useless things."

Post #48:

El Matador wrote: 1.)Evolutionary traits don’t just happened naturally.


I correctly deduced your meaning. Which you later deny, but then clumsily and probably unintentionally contradict yourself.
“It means that in evolutionary terms, we don’t develop useless things.“

Notice why. I state that you said evolutionary traits don’t just happen naturally. Why? Because, according to you “Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason...". What kinds of things? Traits, you say. But then you admit that we don’t develop useless things (traits) via evolution.

So how can we have developed traits if they’re useless, when you even admit that’s not possible?


Post #56:

Judicator wrote: I never once said this and I have no idea how you could have even interpreted out of anything I said.



Post #62:

El Matador wrote: What does this mean then? “Those kinds of things don’t just develop for no reason”



You’re going in a circle, mate.


Judicator wrote:
Argument from Fallacy. But sure, Maybe it was Santa. But Santa is Saint Nicholas, who was a Catholic. Who believed in God. If Catholics are creating things like instincts in human beings retroactively then that’s reason to believe God exists cool


You’re embarrassing yourself now.

Judicator wrote:
Argument from fallacy. There is not enough evidence to claim it’s an instinct in the first place. It’s only a hypothesis.

Pointing out fallacies really doesn’t really help a discussion. If one is going to argue God does not exist then they are going to have to do better than “This instinct might exist."

But let’s assume for a moment that this instinct does exist, the problem isn’t so much IF it exists but WHY it exists. If it’s part of a purely natural process to say, explain phenomena then a personal earthly God likely does not exist. If it’s not a purely natural process to explain phenomena, then a personal God is certainly a possible explanation.

I suppose you don’t have to use the term God in the religious sense though. The scientific equivalent to a creator God is highly advanced aliens. You can replace “God” with “highly advanced aliens” if you want. Since we do not know if it’s purely natural or if there was intervention to create this instinct then we can’t really say it points one way or the other. We have to continue looking for answers. If you say, “we don’t know what was before the universe." then it would be unwise to rule out a God just because we may not have concrete evidence at the current time. The amount of evidence we have has no effect on what is actually true.


It’s a theory, not just a hypothesis.

I already anticipated the question you posed and made a counter argument, which you neglected to address because you claimed I was making up stuff.

This deals with biology, specifically the theory of evolution. Claiming this “instinct” (trait) which is helpful to survive is some type of way magic being or some other shenanigans interact with humans is ludicrous.

What’s next, eyes were created by aliens so we can see them? You might be right, but you’ll need evidence to convince someone serious.

[Reply] #75
05-16-2015 01:36 PM
Joined: 10-09-2011
Posts: 8,854
offline
B.J. Titty-Banger
B.J. Titty-Banger
The Mayor of Titty-City
Rep: 120

If it is the case that belief in god(s) originated from evolutionary psychology and if it is the case that natural selection favored--at the odd intersection of instinct and reason in early humans--the survival of minds that believed everything happened because a sentient being caused it to happen + for reasons that humans could effect with acts of piety, god is not disproven. But god is unnecessary to explain the proliferation of belief in human culture, because humans would proliferate such belief even if there is no god or gods.


__________________

Edited 05-16-2015 01:38 PM by B.J. Titty-Banger
[Reply] #76
05-16-2015 01:44 PM
Joined: 10-09-2011
Posts: 8,854
offline
B.J. Titty-Banger
B.J. Titty-Banger
The Mayor of Titty-City
Rep: 120

Dawkins has speculated that with tribal cooperation being vital to primitive survival and tribes centralizing life around their respective religious myths, rejection of those myths would have been detrimental to survival and unwavering lifelong acceptance even in the face of logical contradictions would have been beneficial (A heretic exiled by his tribe had very little chance of lone survival). This propensity to cling to faith and throw up mental blocks against disbelief and skepticism has been passed down.


__________________

Edited 05-16-2015 01:47 PM by B.J. Titty-Banger
[Reply] #77
05-19-2015 10:16 PM
Joined: 06-26-2014
Posts: 65
offline
Freyr
Freyr
Wannabe
Rep: 1

Yeah but honestly Athiests vs Thiests was the stupidest shit excuse of an argument ever, let’s just kill both, leave those who remain, and let them fend for themselves. A fresh new beginning I must say.


__________________

[Reply] #78
05-19-2015 10:39 PM
Joined: 07-26-2014
Posts: 2,470
offline
Xennotraun
Xennotraun
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 23

Freyr wrote: Yeah but honestly Athiests vs Thiests was the stupidest shit excuse of an argument ever


How long have you been on the internet?


__________________

[Reply] #79
05-19-2015 11:19 PM
Joined: 03-02-2015
Posts: 75
offline
Levi
Levi
Wannabe
Rep: 0

God’s mom.


__________________

[Reply] #80
05-19-2015 11:47 PM
Joined: 01-24-2011
Posts: 4,164
offline
Anime18
Anime18
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 154

LT wrote:


hmmmm....the question all religious nuts seem to totally struggle with...maybe because god doesn’t exist? lol


Idk just my knowledgeable opinion is all.


Don’t take offense xD


__________________

<< First < Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next > Last >>

New Reply
Name (guest):

For faster posting and no restrictions: [Login] [Register]

Message:


 
 

[More Options] [New Topic]
Moderated by: Phobetius, Zeroextra, - FS -, Admins, Superusers [All moderators]
The Lounge Forums ©Silicon.dk ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact