The Faith & Religion mega Thread

All for thinking outside the box; grasps at nonrealities can lead to realities like computers but religious folk make believe the carrot without a stick... higher up they know there's a stick, they'll hit you with it!

If you can think for yourself, there's infinite beliefs; if you can't we get this reality!

Especially for Arcane (but most will find it compelling, informative, and fun) - I have a video for you Arcane, one that I hope will at least give you an alternative of expertise and evidence for a solid view of the nature of existence in our Universe done in a casual conversational manner, and by a rather fascinating interviewer who has entertained considerable "WOO" on psychedelic experience, aliens, flat earth, evolution, etc that might just captivate your attention.

One Interview of Brian Cox on the Joe Rogan Show

Originally Posted by jamison20000e {...}If you can think for yourself, there's infinite beliefs; if you can't we get this reality!

Who said people can't think for themselves? But the problem lies in one thing : When we are|were children growing up as kids we think|thought we know better how life works than adults but then we become adults ourselves and we also start to realise difference between how little and big people think and POV. Same can be for this debate. Maybe there is some hidden valid explainable reason why we have to discuss and guess this mystery instead of simply knowing. If God exists we are like children|kids to God so..we cannot match knowledge and wisdom.

BUT! I doubt this teaching. It contradicts teachings that we need to live on this planet and cherish it. If all people will follow that quote then Earth will be extinct?

@enorbet It does not change anything. You consider your sources to be more real while i consider mines and other commenters theirs..the problem is Truth is only one source but it is unknown to general public. This is where problem lies. Everyone thinks they know this world better yet are not authors of this world so they cannot know for sure yet claim. But when it comes to humanity : humanity was created not born by random cosmic accident.

No truth is a made-up sound encompassing another one called facts...
You drink a large amount of poison you die: fact.

Another fact: the only way anyone on this planet is into religion, is either because you are born into it or you pick one from the many... but; again, why would you pick one,,, how/why* are there so many religions??? Because they've evolved from the first one that you have forsaken!

With or without a creator we (as a whole )are still infants in unimaginable tracks of time.
We like fairy tales, standardized "Education," supermarkets, violence/drama on TV &c.

I've been told that when a loved one or myself are on a deathbed, being that I've been around religion will revert back to it in that moment?
Nope. I'll instead consider the vastly more science (than most anything )that went into Healthcare, as I key it in.


I predict that I don't know what the future will be, wish we have more factual education!

So if you leave a baby in the Woods by itself( with no predators mind you), it'll think for itself?

Originally Posted by Arcane Oh come on sceptics of creation! Let's do experiment: Find free time then make sure you are not distracted at all then get good audio(video can be average) system and watch&listen videos like this with volume enough turned to hear vibes and see what happens after viewing video which is great aswell. If it does not trigger anything at all that makes you question Evolution theory without Aliens or God then i guess Devil won you over..but not rest of planet.

Arcane,

Thank you for the Piano video. I personally enjoyed it.

Greencedar

Yes, it was a great piano video...

anyone who wants to be in charge of more than their own( on purpose or accidental) offspring should be focused more towards education than anything. Pays for itself!

Not to say we all shouldn't be focusing on it. Does education want religion in there, I forget,,, oh wait, no: say we majority.


Diversity is great for foods, climates, skin colors &sea... but religions don't bend or evolve whoops again!

Originally Posted by jamison20000e So if you leave a baby in the Woods by itself( with no predators mind you), it'll think for itself?

Stupid argument. I mentioned grown enough humans not infants. Even animal babies and tree|plant seeds won't grow on their own.

But if you doubt creation how can you explain that humanity have chakra system? There is no way evolution would put that to allow consiousness to surpass Earth limitations. It was either God or Aliens or some other creative designer.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e No truth is a made-up sound encompassing another one called facts... You drink a large amount of poison you die: fact. ...

Truth = fact? Doesn't that mean you're "fake news" today?

Can I drink a large amount of holy water and go to heaven? If the answer is no, I demand a refund.

I predict that I don't know what the future will be, wish we have more factual education!

Good luck with that one the way things are today, or has the education system "evolved" ?

Originally Posted by Arcane @enorbet It does not change anything. You consider your sources to be more real while i consider mines and other commenters theirs..the problem is Truth is only one source but it is unknown to general public. This is where problem lies. Everyone thinks they know this world better yet are not authors of this world so they cannot know for sure yet claim. But when it comes to humanity : humanity was created not born by random cosmic accident.

Truth is not a single entity. It is a set of standards to determine what is real and what is not. Some people think "having an open mind" means considering everything one can imagine as actually possible giving all ideas, answers, speculations the same weight. It should be obvious that is absolutely false and a counter-productive definition of "open mind" since some things are effectively impossible. For example it is impossible for planet Earth to stop spinning and then start back up again even though that would be required by events described in the Christian bible in Joshua 10.

It further begs the question of what Omnipotence can even possibly mean such as "Is it possible for God to create an immovable object and an unstoppable force?" let alone "can He/She/It commit suicide?" Also it begs the question is God true to his/her/its own convictions and principles? Can God lie, cheat or steal? Is he/she/it trustworthy or a trickster? Does he/she/it perfectly practice what he/she/it preaches? Of course also included is that question of "Does God actually have a gender?" and if so, why? since in most religions God is a Man without a Wife, yet supposedly has a Son, but no Daughters unless we consider Angels and from who, where, or how did they come to be and why is it possible for them to break away from "God's Rule" or is everything predestined, which brings up another issue impossible to reconcile.

On a much more "down to Earth" examination of what we consider reliable sources, you, Arcane, almost always quote and/or refer to fictional movies, youtube videos of dubious distinction and occasionally a somewhat mongrelized mix of religious works. Where is the balance? Where are the actual proven tomes that subscribe to and employ evidence and display repeatable patterns tested for hundreds and thousands of years irrespective of who conducts the test or experiment?

It doesn't at all seem that you have an open mind by ANY definition. It appears you prefer to just go with whatever feels right to you. If that is so, let me give you a concept from a source you may find less distasteful to you than that of a scientist. As opposed to the concepts like yours displayed in the Christian Bible regarding the position and movement 'of the heavens"....

Originally Posted by Lennon/McCartney Day after day, alone on a hill The man with the foolish grin Is keeping perfectly still But nobody wants to know him They can see that he's just a fool And he never gives an answer But the fool on the hill Sees the sun going down And the eyes in his head See the world spinning round

Instinct and Intuition actually do have some value but they are not Ultimate Arbiters of Truth, and that, too, should be utterly obvious even to Instinct and Intuition, let alone Reason.

But what i always see is missing from this "choosing between Hell Purgatory and Heaven" agenda is missing game tutorial for all and option to pick Earth life(wasn't Earth made by God anyway?). This is why Adam and Eve fell when Devil offered, also because they were not truly perfect(it contradicts definition of perfection. If perfect being like God cannot fall yet creates perfect beings who do fall (humans and Devil) then they miss something from perfection DNA therefore are not perfect.). They did not know what they were choosing, had no example to learn from and had no option to test and see what fits best for them. They were like childkids to adults and adults allow them to test stuff on their own skin safely. There had to be Sandbox type safety net like on computer for their choices or Trial period of 10(?) days or something like TV on computer before they make final choice. If Adam and Eve would be properly raised nowadays they would pick different choice cause we live in information age which is precisely what they lacked. Knowledge how choices work and where they lead. But nowadays lack communication link and therefore Adam and Eve might be deceived by pretenders. However if authority would show or explain so that it hits their brain before decision then..but still..finite crimes should have way out cause finite crimes can be stopped and not equal to infinite punishments.

Arcane, you have a funny notion of what goodness is. Genuine goodness involves freedom of choice and is therefore open to the possibility of choosing the way that is not good. Isaac Asimov invented robots who could not, by their very nature, choose to harm a human being or allow a human being to come to harm. Such a limitation would no doubt be very useful to us, but a robot who saved a person's life because it was programmed to do so would not be exhibiting moral behaviour.

Some Christian theologians have turned God into a similar robot by saddling Him with an "essential nature" that does not allow Him to sin. But this involves a contradiction. A God who does good because He cannot do otherwise is not doing good at all except by coincidence. He is simply doing what He has to, like one of Asimov's robots. Moreover if God cannot sin, then God is not omnipotent, because there is something that we can do (which is therefore not logically contradictory) but He can't.

The Bible tells us that God is good, not that He has to be good. He is good because He chooses to be. He has the freedom to choose otherwise but doesn't use it. And if you take a literal view of Adam and Eve (which I don't) then they had the same freedom as God because they were made in His image. They chose the wrong way but they didn't have to.

You think God should not have allowed them the choice. You would have had Him "sandbox" them just as those mediaeval theologians tried to "sandbox" Him. But freedom is a good thing even when it is abused, and you can't have freedom without the possibility of abuse.

Originally Posted by hazel Some Christian theologians have turned God into a similar robot by saddling Him with an "essential nature" that does not allow Him to sin. But this involves a contradiction. A God who does good because He cannot do otherwise is not doing good at all except by coincidence. He is simply doing what He has to, like one of Asimov's robots. Moreover if God cannot sin, then God is not omnipotent, because there is something that we can do (which is therefore not logically contradictory) but He can't. The Bible tells us that God is good, not that He has to be good. He is good because He chooses to be. He has the freedom to choose otherwise but doesn't use it.

As I understand the "Abrahamic" religions, to sin is to disobey God's commands. It logically follow that God cannot sin!

As for the question of whether God is "good", it depends on how you define goodness.
> Abstaining from sin? Then God is necessarily good.
> Behaving in such a way as to maximise the chances of flourishing (e.g. virtue ethics)? Meaningless, since an omnipotent being will necessarily flourish.
> Behaving as he would wish others to do in the same circumstances (e.g. following Kantian ethics)? Meaningless, as there is no comparable other.
> Acting so as to produce the best possible outcome (e.g. utilitarian ethics)? That would work better for God than for us, but (since we cannot know all possible divine actions and their consequences) we would not be able to judge whether he was good or not.

As for the Bible showing that God is good, there are any number of passages in both OT and NT which to me show the opposite, but that's another question.

Originally Posted by DavidMcCann As I understand the "Abrahamic" religions, to sin is to disobey God's commands. It logically follow that God cannot sin!

C S Lewis tackled this question in one of his theological books (I can't remember which one). He phrased the question as: "Does God command certain things because they are good, or are certain things good because God commands them?" According to Lewis, there were some "terrible" 17th century theologians (whom he does not name) who held the latter view. One of these apparently went so far as to say that if God commanded us to hate each other rather than to love each other, it would be our duty to do so. Lewis's robust conclusion was, "If there is a God like that, I despise and defy Him."

But if God commands things because they are good, and the contrary things are evil, then they would be evil if He did them too. It can't be good for us to love each other but at the same time good for God to hate us. It can't be good for us to tell the truth but OK for God to lie. So it must be logically possible for God to do things that are not good, whether you call that "sin" or use a different word for it.

Originally Posted by hazel Arcane, you have a funny notion of what goodness is. Genuine goodness involves freedom of choice and is therefore open to the possibility of choosing the way that is not good. Isaac Asimov invented robots{...}

Robots like Adam and Eve DO NOT know difference prior to choosing. How is it choice? If i present you 2+ unknown items to you would you be able to choose one without asking basics about them? My notion is not funny, your notion is and robots ar invalid argument, they not have free will, but we do BUT free will without information is not argument(oh and if robots would have all knowledge of world put inside them then AI could choose then it would go back to my point with Adam and Eve(they did not know info robots would know)), therefore i write these comments. I choose to write them to help discussion. Read my comments : i always keep 1% doubt as long as i am alive or my body is in one piece(if ALLMIGHTY being exist then my body would be able to do Robocop|Terminator trick(dissassembly and reassembly in real time outside cinemas) yet nothing happens but okey maybe it is not yet supposed to happen cause too early therefore atheism exist but that still not go against my point) cause i seek real truth and real justice not one that is presented to general public.

I am not disobeying God or choosing Devil by questioning reality where i have to live alongside others on planet Earth not holy book characters! But if eternal Hell exist then options to not go there and try Heaven or Purgatory or live Earth life should also exist. Otherwise it is set up to go there anyway.