<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+May 23 2004, 04:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ May 23 2004, 04:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Moreover, God's character has little to do with his actual existence. What you're providing is God's emotional state, not his nature of being. Saying that God feels love and is merciful isn't the same as saying he's immaterial or omnipotent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though those statistics may be accurate in determining what inmates call themselves, I would like to see data on how many inmates read the bible at least weekly, or who pray daily. Most Americans, if they went to church as a kid, would call themselves Christians or Catholics regardless of how much they practiced their so-called faith. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is true. Did the study say what they defined as religious? Was it devout religion or just a general "Yeah, I believe in some kinda God"? There is a big difference. You will not find many devout religious people killing people (I am excluding extremists,they are not what I would call devoutly religious).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this interesting.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can somebody who believes in God not be religious? Further, how can somebody who believes that Christ is the son of God not be a Christian? How is such a belief "so-called faith" and not faith? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is possible to think a god is 'out there' and yet not worship it.
Those people were not asked 'do you think Christ is the son of God,' they were asked what they would call themselves.
And, as I said before, most people, having gone to Sunday school until they were 5, would assume that they were a Christian, though they may not have the faintest idea what Jesus taught, much less believe he is the son of God, and even then, have asked Him for forgiveness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you don't know God fully, but what you do know you've described through human language. However, human language is bound to the realm of the natural and as such isn't able to describe God's attributes as those are supernatural and supernatural traits must differ in kind from natural traits, not merely degree. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am curious, why must human language describe only the natural? Human language describes concepts as well as real, solid things. Saying something does not have energy, for example, would require that thing does not need energy to exist, and thus, is not Natural. Such an object must be Supernatural if it exists.
A supernatural god must be beyond material, and beyond energy. Either he doesn't exist, or we can't define him in the sense that we can define a proton or a neutron. Yet, our inability to define God in a definate sense does not call his existance into question.
Furthermore, even if God cannot be defined, He can still be known. Assuming He did speak through the Bible to show His own existance, nevermind His care for mankind, I would still be left with the fact that something supernatural:
1) Exists. 2) Loves the human race. 3) Interfered with nature to show His own existance and love.
I may not know every specific of God, just as I cannot know every specific of your own person. But, if the Bible is right (which, I find, is what every one of these discussions devolves into; accuracy and reliability of scripture) I still have to conclude that those three things are true, and in fact, are the only things that need to be known to be a Christian:
1) Acknowledging God as who he really is. 2) Believing Christ is the embodiment of God's love for mankind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It sounds very much like you're saying that you simultaneously know and don't know what God is<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am saying, I do not know <i>exactly what</i> God is, but I know He does exist, and what His personality is like.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am curious, why must human language describe only the natural? Human language describes concepts as well as real, solid things. Saying something does not have energy, for example, would require that thing does not need energy to exist, and thus, is not Natural. Such an object must be Supernatural if it exists.
A supernatural god must be beyond material, and beyond energy. Either he doesn't exist, or we can't define him in the sense that we can define a proton or a neutron. Yet, our inability to define God in a definate sense does not call his existance into question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me refine my statement. Human language can only <i>accurately</i> describe the natural world. When human language is applied to the supernatural, the words we use lose their meaning. Human language is based on observations of the natural world. When we feel emotions, those emotions are accompanied by physical reactions. Synapses fire, chemicals are released, things like heart rate and breathing can increase and so on. It's impossible to separate the emotion from the material that makes us up.
The supernatural on the other hand, can not be described with any accuracy by human language. As I've stated before, supernatural traits must be of an entirely different kind. They can't differ simply by degree. Let's say that I am superior to you in every way. I'm stronger and faster, I have a greater capacity for abstract thought and memory recall, etc. My superiority wouldn't make me God since I'm still bound by the limits of the natural world. A supernatural being has no such limitations so their traits must be of a different kind. Using emotions for example, God's emotions would have to differ in kind since they don't require material to exist.
The inability to define God <i>does</i> call God's existance into question. If you can't tell me what God is, God becomes a nonsensical word. It would be like saying "Gorblats exist," but being unable to tell you what a Gorblat consists of. The best I can tell you is that the Gorblat is brown. The fact the the Gorblat is brown has nothing to do with whether or not it actually exists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, even if God cannot be defined, He can still be known. Assuming He did speak through the Bible to show His own existance, nevermind His care for mankind, I would still be left with the fact that something supernatural:
1) Exists. 2) Loves the human race. 3) Interfered with nature to show His own existance and love.
I may not know every specific of God, just as I cannot know every specific of your own person. But, if the Bible is right (which, I find, is what every one of these discussions devolves into; accuracy and reliability of scripture) I still have to conclude that those three things are true, and in fact, are the only things that need to be known to be a Christian:
1) Acknowledging God as who he really is. 2) Believing Christ is the embodiment of God's love for mankind.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God's emotions are irrelevant to his actual existance. To say that God feels love is to presuppose that God exists. If you can't tell me what God is, how in the world am I supposed to know what God consists of? To say that God is immaterial doesn't tell me what God <i>is.</i> It tells me what God isn't. The statement "God is immaterial" tells me that God does not consist of material. Every positive aspect you've given God is a personality trait which presumes that God exists.
The difference between not knowing God and not knowing me is a vast one. If you were so inclined, you could come up to Maine and I could tell you the story of my life. We could then go to the hospital and get a full psychological and physiological work up for you to view. Your knowledge deficit in regards to me can be overcome. Your knowledge deficit in regards to God can't.
Also, using God and the bible to prove each other is a textbook definition of circular logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am saying, I do not know exactly what God is, but I know He does exist, and what His personality is like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your knowledge is based on presupposition that God exists. Even then, the traits that God has are nothing like traits as we know them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its like a pen-pal kind of- you know the personality relatively well, their likes/dislikes, but you know nothing of what they look like(unless pictures are sent).
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is another major problem I have with Christianity. It demands belief before knowledge. Using this system, you can pass off any blame for God's absence to the person. It's not that there's no God, it's just that you aren't really believing or you aren't believing hard enough. I did state in my first post in this thread that I used to be religious, but I never saw or felt God. In your scenario, the fault lies with me and not God. It would have to, since a perfect being can't be wrong.
Unsurprisingly, your report of experiencing God doesn't differ from virtually every other account I've heard. A generalized feeling of well being that is accompanied by an inability to describe what God is actually like. I'd hypothesize that your experience is an accumulation of reports that you have heard before about experiencing God. It would certainly account for the lack of specificity and the generalized feeling.
Asking me to be less skeptical is like asking me to be less white.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Its like a pen-pal kind of- you know the personality relatively well, their likes/dislikes, but you know nothing of what they look like(unless pictures are sent).
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism.
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+May 23 2004, 01:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ May 23 2004, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its like a pen-pal kind of- you know the personality relatively well, their likes/dislikes, but you know nothing of what they look like(unless pictures are sent).
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Should we also drop skepticism about aliens, the war in Iraq, pyramid schemes, psychics, used car salesmen, etc.?
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+May 23 2004, 10:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ May 23 2004, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, what is the difference between extremists and the devout? What constitutes extremism? What makes one devout? Why are the two mutually exclusive and why do you have the authority to seperate the two? Are extremists <i>fake</i> Christians as opposed to real ones?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Extremists are people (from any religion) who take the teachings to the extreme (hence the name). Devout people are people who follow the relegion "religiously" (pardon the pun).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, using God and the bible to prove each other is a textbook definition of circular logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no it isn't. The Bible does not rely on the fact that It is the word of God as it's "proof". There is plenty of evidence to support it and what it says.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an inability to describe what God is actually like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-1 Corinthians 13:12+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (1 Corinthians 13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody can describe exactly what God is like. As Paul said, All we "see" of God, his workings in the world, personal experiences and such like, are just poor dim reflections in a bad mirror. When we do see him face to face, these things will be much clearer and much more real. Asking us to describe exactly what God is like down to the last detail is like us asking you to describe exactly what Pluto looks like, down to the last rock. You can get a general idea (ie it is round and grey) but beyond that, without actually going there, you stand no chance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Asking me to be less skeptical is like asking me to be less white. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would seem from your arguements Finch, that you also doubt the existance of phonemarketers who call you during dinner. You've never seen them, you cantdescribe exactly who they are, although you can draw several conclusions about them.
You know they are annoying, you know he loves to talk, but you dont actually KNOW him. I think thats the way it is with people and God. All they know about him is what he has communicated to them. They can make inferences about who/what he is based around what he has said, but not much more.
Oh - and using the Bible to justify God is not circular reasoning. If the Bible turns out to be BS, then so too does the Christian idea of God. The sole proof of the validity of the Bible is not that God exists.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 23 2004, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 23 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It would seem from your arguements Finch, that you also doubt the existance of phonemarketers who call you during dinner. You've never seen them, you cantdescribe exactly who they are, although you can draw several conclusions about them.
You know they are annoying, you know he loves to talk, but you dont actually KNOW him. I think thats the way it is with people and God. All they know about him is what he has communicated to them. They can make inferences about who/what he is based around what he has said, but not much more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But we have seen telemarketers, and we've actually talked to them. Talked to them a bit too much, I might add. Anyway, there is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of telemarketers. I have, however, never talked to God on the phone, nor seen a do-not-call list set up for people who do not want to be called by God.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 23 2004, 06:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 23 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But we have seen telemarketers, and we've actually talked to them. Talked to them a bit too much, I might add. Anyway, there is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of telemarketers. I have, however, never talked to God on the phone, nor seen a do-not-call list set up for people who do not want to be called by God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inability to define God does call God's existance into question. If you can't tell me what God is, God becomes a nonsensical word. It would be like saying "Gorblats exist," but being unable to tell you what a Gorblat consists of. The best I can tell you is that the Gorblat is brown. The fact the the Gorblat is brown has nothing to do with whether or not it actually exists. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both of these presuppose the fact that no one has in fact interacted with God, which is perfectly understandable. In order to support this claim though, you would have to believe that many, many people, from all races and backgrounds, are all sharing a common delusion.
So, if you do, let me ask you something. Do you believe that atoms exist? You can't see, taste, touch, hear, or feel them, but I'm willing to bet you do believe they exist. And yet they can't be described in a definitive sense - only in abstractions. What about the sun? I'm willing to bet you've never left the Earth, and yet you learned that it was 93 million miles away from us, despite never having measured the distance yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, if you do, let me ask you something. Do you believe that atoms exist? You can't see, taste, touch, hear, or feel them, but I'm willing to bet you do believe they exist. And yet they can't be described in a definitive sense - only in abstractions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can see atoms now with atomic force microcroscopy, we've come a long way since the original microscope. Not only can you see atoms, you can even use atoms to write stuff that is so small, you can put an entire bible on a 20c piece.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
B33f.
I'm not sure what you are meaning by an atheist society being more peaceful, because really, they would be killing each other over land exactly the same as they were in the crusades. The difference was the initial method of social control (what, essentially religion is) would of been different to stir the peasants up into a frenzy for war. It's about manipulating people, not about any inherent truth in that religion when you're talking about a war like the crusades.
Boggle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, no it isn't. The Bible does not rely on the fact that It is the word of God as it's "proof". There is plenty of evidence to support it and what it says.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally the Bible is historically supported (obviously not in some areas), but there is more than sufficient proof that many things it talks about have happened and are inspired by events that occured. The destruction of the Babylonian empire, the fall of Rome and particularly that Jesus did exist as a historical figure (Others can debate the rest, but he, or someone named Jesus, was around then and definitely very important). While it definitely is from the 'winners' point of view, nothing that all history has that distinct problem, it is one of the best sources for things that occured in many areas of the ancient world.
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 23 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 23 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can see atoms now with atomic force microcroscopy, we've come a long way since the original microscope. Not only can you see atoms, you can even use atoms to write stuff that is so small, you can put an entire bible on a 20c piece.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I know that you can use electron microscopy to see atoms. That's not the point; the general argument is the same.
How do you *know* what you're seeing is, in fact, there? My point is that the evidence supports a theory, and you believe it without independently verifying it.
*ninja edit* It's probable that most of the people on these boards have never derived Maxwell's equations, nor taken a look at Schrodinger's. They just understand that, well, the concepts work, so it must be true.
*ninja edit 2* I did read your post, and you still don't get my point, which was relating their beliefs in the existence of whatever to a religious belief of whatever.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 23 2004, 08:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 23 2004, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 23 2004, 08:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 23 2004, 08:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You can see atoms now with atomic force microcroscopy, we've come a long way since the original microscope. Not only can you see atoms, you can even use atoms to write stuff that is so small, you can put an entire bible on a 20c piece.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I know that you can use electron microscopy to see atoms. That's not the point; the general argument is the same.
How do you *know* what you're seeing is, in fact, there? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Atomic force microscopy</b>. Very different.
Did you even read what I wrote?
If there isn't an atom there, explain how you write with it :rolleyes: As I said, you can both see and manipulate individual atoms using such a machine, therefore that argument is rather irrelevant (though it can be applied to different objects or forces, particularly photons).
Lets say Weeee's satament isn't silly for a moment. How do we know what we call "atoms" really exist? Maybe they don't, but the abstraction works so well that we couldn't tell the difference. Thats the difference between atoms and God. We can build a good working model of the universe without God, but it'd be pretty difficult without atoms.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+May 23 2004, 08:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ May 23 2004, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets say Weeee's satament isn't silly for a moment. How do we know what we call "atoms" really exist? Maybe they don't, but the abstraction works so well that we couldn't tell the difference. Thats the difference between atoms and God. We can build a good working model of the universe without God, but it'd be pretty difficult without atoms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> um, i would like to dispute that. For all intents and purposes, classical newtonian physics is good enough for any of our daily lives.
*edit* also, superstring theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+May 23 2004, 08:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ May 23 2004, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets say Weeee's satament isn't silly for a moment. How do we know what we call "atoms" really exist? Maybe they don't, but the abstraction works so well that we couldn't tell the difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, for example with photons. Nobody has yet isolated or even been able to determine if there is such a particle in existence, it is simply used as a very good model of what is going on for lack of a better one. When someone comes up with something better, we'll use that instead. Science isn't fixed, it merely adapts ideas and theories according to what evidence and observations have been made.
Religion (well some may) doesn't allow for much wiggle room however. To be a Christian you must accept that Jesus existed, died for our sins and was ressurected in addition to following the teachings of Christ. If you do B but not A, you are not a Christian, if you do A and not B you probably still aren't a Christian either. You need to accept both premises first.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 23 2004, 09:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 23 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *edit* also, superstring theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I know, there is currently neither empirical evidence for string theory (just a lot of fancy math, which does lend it credibility), nor a practical application.
However, if significant evidence does arise to support it, somebody, sometime, will come up with a use for it. A long time ago, people may have said "electricity theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere.", but, obviously, electricity is pretty important now.
If I may, I'd like to flip roles for just one second.
Omitting the gameplay device of the CommChair, could you please describe the Commander in NS for me?
This question is not as rediculous as it seems.
To everyone on ground level, except for the little blinking thing in the top of your HUD, you have no idea if someone is there or not. In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means. Medpacks and structures and the like. If things started happening that were physically incapable of happening without a Commander, then you'd know someone was looking over your shoulder.
Yet, at the same time, the commander is:<ul><li>Immaterial.</li><li>Of a different 'kind' than the rest of the marines.
Which pretty much fulfills all of your requirements as to the supernatural, right? </li><li>Interacting with the world.</li><li>Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.</li></ul> Which, pretty much solves all of our problems, and illustrates perfectly the idea of God.
The Commander is the Marine God.
Of course, I know you're going to want to shoot this analogy into pieces, so let's deal with this before I start bringing up Biblical credibility as a way of prooving that God has indeed spoken and interacted with the world.
Your analogy falls apart here: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because a great meny of the things that we observe happening can be readily explained by science, or at the very least wouldn't require an omnipotent deity. and here: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [*]Interacting with the world. [*]Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only evidence we have for there being a supernatural being interacting with the world and talking to its people is contained in a bunch of books, many of which were written back when the earth was still considered to be flat.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+May 24 2004, 09:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ May 24 2004, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your analogy falls apart here: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because a great meny of the things that we observe happening can be readily explained by science, or at the very least wouldn't require an omnipotent deity. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> His analogy holds up for both of those parts.
Yes, there are a great many things that sicence can explain, but it cannot explain everything. Yes, in the future, science will be able to explain a lot more things that right now, but <i>everything</i>? If you are waiting for science to be able to explain eveything, I suggest you don't hold your breath.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and here: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [*]Interacting with the world. [*]Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only evidence we have for there being a supernatural being interacting with the world and talking to its people is contained in a bunch of books, many of which were written back when the earth was still considered to be flat.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. The evidence we have for God speaking to people is not just in the Bible, it is an experience shared by millions of people of different nationalities and different backgrounds all over the world. Are you seriously suggesting that they are all suffereing from a mass delusion? One so convincing that even the founders of this "delusion" were prepared to die for it? Where the founders of this delusion so convinced by thier own practical joke that they were prepared to give their lives for it? Did they honestly think that fooling lot of people was worth <i>dying</i> for?
His analogy falls apart before he begins because the commander in NS is clearly a dude sitting in a chair, probably someone the marines just had lunch or dinner with. So it isn't even applicable to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because they know it is probably dave sitting in a chair near the entrance to the base.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One so convincing that even the founders of this "delusion" were prepared to die for it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SS divisions in NAZI Germany would fight to the very last man in many cases and were widely reported to have almost no regard for their own life. Does that make Hitler a God too? People are easily manipulated and when you have an institutions that for thousands of years did exactly that all over Europe, the middle East etc, are you really so surprised you get hundreds of people believing something, regardless of if they made the decision if it was true or not for themselves?
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 24 2004, 11:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 24 2004, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> His analogy falls apart before he begins because the commander in NS is clearly a dude sitting in a chair, probably someone the marines just had lunch or dinner with. So it isn't even applicable to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 24 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 24 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A bad analogy that sets up a bad argument is still a bad analogy. If you don't want an analogy that can be attacked, then don't make an analogy that is sinking before it even gets put in the water.
I did both incidently and I never made an analogy, I just described what happens using the fiction of the NS universe. A large difference.
(Incidently, the point about the SS demonstrates a very simple concept, just because someone will die for it, doesn't make it right or correct).
<!--QuoteBegin-Aegeri+May 24 2004, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ May 24 2004, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 24 2004, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 24 2004, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A bad analogy that sets up a bad argument is still a bad analogy. If you don't want an analogy that can be attacked, then don't make an analogy that is sinking before it even gets put in the water.
I did both incidently and I never made an analogy, I just described what happens using the fiction of the NS universe. A large difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My point was not how good or bad the analogy was (or the argument behind it). My point was that the analogy is there to make a point, not to be a target for people trying to skirt the main issue.
Yes, you could say that it is a bad analogy because the commander sits down and has lunch with the rest of the marines, but Legionnaired wasn't talking about that. He specifically said "gameplay". Yes, he was reffering to the commchair, but any sensible person would then go on to realise that he is reffering to a game situation, not a mess-hall. Therefore, your point about the commander having lunch is not arguing the point of the analogy, so it is attacking the analogy itself.
(And I never said you made a specific analogy, just that whichever one you do make won't be perfect)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, he was reffering to the commchair, but any sensible person would then go on to realise that he is reffering to a game situation, not a mess-hall<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Missed point++
Versilimilitude dictates that either way his analogy is flawed and ultimately worthless for two main premises:
1 Unlike God, the marine commander exists in the gameworld as a physical entity that can be seen, interacted with and heard at any time.
2 Unlike God, the marine commander has a fixed position while commanding and can be directly visited, viewed and even CHANGED as the situation dictates.
Premise 1 supports premise 2, which itself supports premise 1. Therefore the analogy, and by default the argument the analogy is being used to support, is rendered invalid.
There. Simple stuff.
The other main problem of the analogy is that is not actually analogous to the discussion. God does not interact in peoples lives directly and there isn't evidence to support that, without falling back into a "prove/disprove God" argument which we are already aware is pointless.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, there are a great many things that sicence can explain, but it cannot explain everything. Yes, in the future, science will be able to explain a lot more things that right now, but everything?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it can't be explained, just that we dont yet have sufficient knowledge to explain it. We can't just go around blaming everything we can't immediatly explain on God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+May 24 2004, 05:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ May 24 2004, 05:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [Incorrect. The evidence we have for God speaking to people is not just in the Bible, it is an experience shared by millions of people of different nationalities and different backgrounds all over the world. Are you seriously suggesting that they are all suffereing from a mass delusion? One so convincing that even the founders of this "delusion" were prepared to die for it? Where the founders of this delusion so convinced by thier own practical joke that they were prepared to give their lives for it? Did they honestly think that fooling lot of people was worth <i>dying</i> for? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem here is that in general when someone says "God speaks to me" it is really a euphemism for "I think God spoke to me through some feelings or thoughts I had".
Many people have these feelings, sure. But they're not all of the same religion. So ultimately where does that leave us as to which one is "right" ?
I also don't think such feelings are limited to religion per se, but rather engaging in activites that allow you to simply "be" for a time. Whether that be playing a sport or dancing up a storm - anything that frees you from the concerns of meaning and day to day worries - would generate such a feeling IMO.
People are willing to die for many reasons - sometimes even to help a complete stranger.
The only decent analogy I have ever heard for describing god is the intangiable gardner. The idea is that there is Garden and the person who owns it claims they have an invisible, intangiable Gardner. This Gardner doesn't actually do anything you can physically see, it doesn't mow the lawn, it doesn't water the flowers or kill the weeds, possibly it talks to the flowers to encourage them but if it does its in a voice that noone can actually hear. However the owner claims that without this Gardner the Garden would die and just be a patch of waste land, nothing there. The owner can't prove it and yet noone can actually prove that the owner is wrong.
Atoms, NS Commanders and all the other various analogies just don't work as it is possible to get evidence for their existence (even if its not first hand evidence, its hard to lean on an atom but its possible to view one as has already been pointed out).
The only analogies that work for God are ludicrous. Did you know I have a pink and purple dragon thats covered in horns living in my shed? Well, I say pink and purple but you can't actually see it... and those horns, well it definitely has them but you can't touch them because they are intangiable. I know its there though!
See what I mean? Ludicrous.
There is absolutely no proof for god, you can't use your own experiences because there are plenty of people who can trick themselves into feeling things that don't exist. Hell, people can cure themselves with placebo's, Stigmata change places depending on your favourite crucifix, aliens abduct rednecks so they can stick stuff up their... noses. I've <i>seen</i> people speaking in tongues and fainting from being 'touched by the lord' when they are simply being tricked by charlatans.
People can convince themselves of anything. Yes, I know that you can use that argument against athiests as well, that we are so convinced that we blind ourselves to the truth etc but thats exactly my point. There is no proof for or against a God, it just depends on how you feel and I personally think the idea of some supernatural beard looking down on me is, as nice as it might be, simply a comfort blanket for the gullible and superstitious (yes, that includes really sceptical and intelligent people who believe as well, we all make mistakes).
The NS Commander analogy is flawed, as was pointed out. The commander is still bound by the limits of the NS universe. Like Aegeri said, the comm has a fixed position and can be interacted with and even replaced. If you're an alien, the comm certainly seems even less God-like since you can eat him.
So far, nobody has been able to define God. At best, God seems to be utterly unknowable.
NB: If this point was made, and I missed it, then my apologies (I looked through the thread, but didn't see it being made).
While certain things like "strings" or protons cannot be seen, noone is claiming that strings have emotion. They serve a purpose*, but they don't have an agenda. God would seem to.
I can believe in a god that doesn't intefere in our lives in any way; an observer who watches but not acts. I think that attributing human factors to a god, though, makes him a lot less believable (in my eyes). I don't see how you can be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfect while retaining anything of humanity. There's certainly nothing to prove that He loves us, even if He exists.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I believe strings are meant to be the building blocks of the universe, but I can't fully remember as it's been a while since I've heard anything about it. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.</span>
That would be a pretty useless God to worship though wouldn't it Snidely? A god which has no effect on anything at all and, if it doesn't love us like the usual christian god does then you won't even be rewarded with heaven if you believe?
In the end religion is an entirely selfish thing, you worship so that you can live for ever, become powerful and to get absolution/avoid responsibility.
A God like you said may well exist but why pray to it?
As a side note, it seems to me that with the current rate of medical and overall technological advance, human immortality may be realistically possible in the next hundred or thousand years. What would the religious implications of that be?
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though those statistics may be accurate in determining what inmates call themselves, I would like to see data on how many inmates read the bible at least weekly, or who pray daily. Most Americans, if they went to church as a kid, would call themselves Christians or Catholics regardless of how much they practiced their so-called faith.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is true. Did the study say what they defined as religious? Was it devout religion or just a general "Yeah, I believe in some kinda God"? There is a big difference. You will not find many devout religious people killing people (I am excluding extremists,they are not what I would call devoutly religious).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this interesting.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can somebody who believes in God not be religious? Further, how can somebody who believes that Christ is the son of God not be a Christian? How is such a belief "so-called faith" and not faith?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is possible to think a god is 'out there' and yet not worship it.
Those people were not asked 'do you think Christ is the son of God,' they were asked what they would call themselves.
And, as I said before, most people, having gone to Sunday school until they were 5, would assume that they were a Christian, though they may not have the faintest idea what Jesus taught, much less believe he is the son of God, and even then, have asked Him for forgiveness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you don't know God fully, but what you do know you've described through human language. However, human language is bound to the realm of the natural and as such isn't able to describe God's attributes as those are supernatural and supernatural traits must differ in kind from natural traits, not merely degree.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am curious, why must human language describe only the natural? Human language describes concepts as well as real, solid things. Saying something does not have energy, for example, would require that thing does not need energy to exist, and thus, is not Natural. Such an object must be Supernatural if it exists.
A supernatural god must be beyond material, and beyond energy. Either he doesn't exist, or we can't define him in the sense that we can define a proton or a neutron. Yet, our inability to define God in a definate sense does not call his existance into question.
Furthermore, even if God cannot be defined, He can still be known. Assuming He did speak through the Bible to show His own existance, nevermind His care for mankind, I would still be left with the fact that something supernatural:
1) Exists.
2) Loves the human race.
3) Interfered with nature to show His own existance and love.
I may not know every specific of God, just as I cannot know every specific of your own person. But, if the Bible is right (which, I find, is what every one of these discussions devolves into; accuracy and reliability of scripture) I still have to conclude that those three things are true, and in fact, are the only things that need to be known to be a Christian:
1) Acknowledging God as who he really is.
2) Believing Christ is the embodiment of God's love for mankind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It sounds very much like you're saying that you simultaneously know and don't know what God is<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am saying, I do not know <i>exactly what</i> God is, but I know He does exist, and what His personality is like.
A supernatural god must be beyond material, and beyond energy. Either he doesn't exist, or we can't define him in the sense that we can define a proton or a neutron. Yet, our inability to define God in a definate sense does not call his existance into question.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me refine my statement. Human language can only <i>accurately</i> describe the natural world. When human language is applied to the supernatural, the words we use lose their meaning. Human language is based on observations of the natural world. When we feel emotions, those emotions are accompanied by physical reactions. Synapses fire, chemicals are released, things like heart rate and breathing can increase and so on. It's impossible to separate the emotion from the material that makes us up.
The supernatural on the other hand, can not be described with any accuracy by human language. As I've stated before, supernatural traits must be of an entirely different kind. They can't differ simply by degree. Let's say that I am superior to you in every way. I'm stronger and faster, I have a greater capacity for abstract thought and memory recall, etc. My superiority wouldn't make me God since I'm still bound by the limits of the natural world. A supernatural being has no such limitations so their traits must be of a different kind. Using emotions for example, God's emotions would have to differ in kind since they don't require material to exist.
The inability to define God <i>does</i> call God's existance into question. If you can't tell me what God is, God becomes a nonsensical word. It would be like saying "Gorblats exist," but being unable to tell you what a Gorblat consists of. The best I can tell you is that the Gorblat is brown. The fact the the Gorblat is brown has nothing to do with whether or not it actually exists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, even if God cannot be defined, He can still be known. Assuming He did speak through the Bible to show His own existance, nevermind His care for mankind, I would still be left with the fact that something supernatural:
1) Exists.
2) Loves the human race.
3) Interfered with nature to show His own existance and love.
I may not know every specific of God, just as I cannot know every specific of your own person. But, if the Bible is right (which, I find, is what every one of these discussions devolves into; accuracy and reliability of scripture) I still have to conclude that those three things are true, and in fact, are the only things that need to be known to be a Christian:
1) Acknowledging God as who he really is.
2) Believing Christ is the embodiment of God's love for mankind.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God's emotions are irrelevant to his actual existance. To say that God feels love is to presuppose that God exists. If you can't tell me what God is, how in the world am I supposed to know what God consists of? To say that God is immaterial doesn't tell me what God <i>is.</i> It tells me what God isn't. The statement "God is immaterial" tells me that God does not consist of material. Every positive aspect you've given God is a personality trait which presumes that God exists.
The difference between not knowing God and not knowing me is a vast one. If you were so inclined, you could come up to Maine and I could tell you the story of my life. We could then go to the hospital and get a full psychological and physiological work up for you to view. Your knowledge deficit in regards to me can be overcome. Your knowledge deficit in regards to God can't.
Also, using God and the bible to prove each other is a textbook definition of circular logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am saying, I do not know exactly what God is, but I know He does exist, and what His personality is like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your knowledge is based on presupposition that God exists. Even then, the traits that God has are nothing like traits as we know them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its like a pen-pal kind of- you know the personality relatively well, their likes/dislikes, but you know nothing of what they look like(unless pictures are sent).
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is another major problem I have with Christianity. It demands belief before knowledge. Using this system, you can pass off any blame for God's absence to the person. It's not that there's no God, it's just that you aren't really believing or you aren't believing hard enough. I did state in my first post in this thread that I used to be religious, but I never saw or felt God. In your scenario, the fault lies with me and not God. It would have to, since a perfect being can't be wrong.
Unsurprisingly, your report of experiencing God doesn't differ from virtually every other account I've heard. A generalized feeling of well being that is accompanied by an inability to describe what God is actually like. I'd hypothesize that your experience is an accumulation of reports that you have heard before about experiencing God. It would certainly account for the lack of specificity and the generalized feeling.
Asking me to be less skeptical is like asking me to be less white.
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism.
Though, you CAN see God. You can touch him, feel him, hear him, talk with him. If you search with no skepticism in your heart, he'll show himself to you quite quickly.
I myself experienced this not long ago. I honestly saw and talked to him. I can't describe what he's like, just the feeling I had- pure ecstacy. I felt I could do anything. I felt as if I was the smartest man in the world, as if my life completed. It was amazing, a feeling that I would do anything for.
God is a being you cannot describe when you see him. He is so many things all at once that its almost impossible to believe without seeing it yourself.
He's there for everyone, just open up and drop the skepticism. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Should we also drop skepticism about aliens, the war in Iraq, pyramid schemes, psychics, used car salesmen, etc.?
Extremists are people (from any religion) who take the teachings to the extreme (hence the name). Devout people are people who follow the relegion "religiously" (pardon the pun).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, using God and the bible to prove each other is a textbook definition of circular logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no it isn't. The Bible does not rely on the fact that It is the word of God as it's "proof". There is plenty of evidence to support it and what it says.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an inability to describe what God is actually like.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-1 Corinthians 13:12+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (1 Corinthians 13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nobody can describe exactly what God is like. As Paul said, All we "see" of God, his workings in the world, personal experiences and such like, are just poor dim reflections in a bad mirror. When we do see him face to face, these things will be much clearer and much more real. Asking us to describe exactly what God is like down to the last detail is like us asking you to describe exactly what Pluto looks like, down to the last rock. You can get a general idea (ie it is round and grey) but beyond that, without actually going there, you stand no chance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Asking me to be less skeptical is like asking me to be less white. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go get a Sun Tan?
You know they are annoying, you know he loves to talk, but you dont actually KNOW him. I think thats the way it is with people and God. All they know about him is what he has communicated to them. They can make inferences about who/what he is based around what he has said, but not much more.
Oh - and using the Bible to justify God is not circular reasoning. If the Bible turns out to be BS, then so too does the Christian idea of God. The sole proof of the validity of the Bible is not that God exists.
You know they are annoying, you know he loves to talk, but you dont actually KNOW him. I think thats the way it is with people and God. All they know about him is what he has communicated to them. They can make inferences about who/what he is based around what he has said, but not much more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But we have seen telemarketers, and we've actually talked to them. Talked to them a bit too much, I might add. Anyway, there is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of telemarketers. I have, however, never talked to God on the phone, nor seen a do-not-call list set up for people who do not want to be called by God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The inability to define God does call God's existance into question. If you can't tell me what God is, God becomes a nonsensical word. It would be like saying "Gorblats exist," but being unable to tell you what a Gorblat consists of. The best I can tell you is that the Gorblat is brown. The fact the the Gorblat is brown has nothing to do with whether or not it actually exists.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both of these presuppose the fact that no one has in fact interacted with God, which is perfectly understandable. In order to support this claim though, you would have to believe that many, many people, from all races and backgrounds, are all sharing a common delusion.
So, if you do, let me ask you something. Do you believe that atoms exist? You can't see, taste, touch, hear, or feel them, but I'm willing to bet you do believe they exist. And yet they can't be described in a definitive sense - only in abstractions. What about the sun? I'm willing to bet you've never left the Earth, and yet you learned that it was 93 million miles away from us, despite never having measured the distance yourself.
*edit* grammar
You can see atoms now with atomic force microcroscopy, we've come a long way since the original microscope. Not only can you see atoms, you can even use atoms to write stuff that is so small, you can put an entire bible on a 20c piece.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
B33f.
I'm not sure what you are meaning by an atheist society being more peaceful, because really, they would be killing each other over land exactly the same as they were in the crusades. The difference was the initial method of social control (what, essentially religion is) would of been different to stir the peasants up into a frenzy for war. It's about manipulating people, not about any inherent truth in that religion when you're talking about a war like the crusades.
Boggle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, no it isn't. The Bible does not rely on the fact that It is the word of God as it's "proof". There is plenty of evidence to support it and what it says.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally the Bible is historically supported (obviously not in some areas), but there is more than sufficient proof that many things it talks about have happened and are inspired by events that occured. The destruction of the Babylonian empire, the fall of Rome and particularly that Jesus did exist as a historical figure (Others can debate the rest, but he, or someone named Jesus, was around then and definitely very important). While it definitely is from the 'winners' point of view, nothing that all history has that distinct problem, it is one of the best sources for things that occured in many areas of the ancient world.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I know that you can use electron microscopy to see atoms. That's not the point; the general argument is the same.
How do you *know* what you're seeing is, in fact, there? My point is that the evidence supports a theory, and you believe it without independently verifying it.
*ninja edit*
It's probable that most of the people on these boards have never derived Maxwell's equations, nor taken a look at Schrodinger's. They just understand that, well, the concepts work, so it must be true.
*ninja edit 2*
I did read your post, and you still don't get my point, which was relating their beliefs in the existence of whatever to a religious belief of whatever.
Oh, your argument is out of date, move onto quarks or something <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I know that you can use electron microscopy to see atoms. That's not the point; the general argument is the same.
How do you *know* what you're seeing is, in fact, there? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Atomic force microscopy</b>. Very different.
Did you even read what I wrote?
If there isn't an atom there, explain how you write with it :rolleyes: As I said, you can both see and manipulate individual atoms using such a machine, therefore that argument is rather irrelevant (though it can be applied to different objects or forces, particularly photons).
um, i would like to dispute that. For all intents and purposes, classical newtonian physics is good enough for any of our daily lives.
*edit* also, superstring theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere.
Yes, for example with photons. Nobody has yet isolated or even been able to determine if there is such a particle in existence, it is simply used as a very good model of what is going on for lack of a better one. When someone comes up with something better, we'll use that instead. Science isn't fixed, it merely adapts ideas and theories according to what evidence and observations have been made.
Religion (well some may) doesn't allow for much wiggle room however. To be a Christian you must accept that Jesus existed, died for our sins and was ressurected in addition to following the teachings of Christ. If you do B but not A, you are not a Christian, if you do A and not B you probably still aren't a Christian either. You need to accept both premises first.
*edit* also, superstring theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I know, there is currently neither empirical evidence for string theory (just a lot of fancy math, which does lend it credibility), nor a practical application.
However, if significant evidence does arise to support it, somebody, sometime, will come up with a use for it. A long time ago, people may have said "electricity theory works fairly well, although i don't think it will end up going anywhere.", but, obviously, electricity is pretty important now.
Omitting the gameplay device of the CommChair, could you please describe the Commander in NS for me?
This question is not as rediculous as it seems.
To everyone on ground level, except for the little blinking thing in the top of your HUD, you have no idea if someone is there or not. In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means. Medpacks and structures and the like. If things started happening that were physically incapable of happening without a Commander, then you'd know someone was looking over your shoulder.
Yet, at the same time, the commander is:<ul><li>Immaterial.</li><li>Of a different 'kind' than the rest of the marines.
Which pretty much fulfills all of your requirements as to the supernatural, right?
</li><li>Interacting with the world.</li><li>Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.</li></ul>
Which, pretty much solves all of our problems, and illustrates perfectly the idea of God.
The Commander is the Marine God.
Of course, I know you're going to want to shoot this analogy into pieces, so let's deal with this before I start bringing up Biblical credibility as a way of prooving that God has indeed spoken and interacted with the world.
Because a great meny of the things that we observe happening can be readily explained by science, or at the very least wouldn't require an omnipotent deity.
and here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
[*]Interacting with the world.
[*]Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only evidence we have for there being a supernatural being interacting with the world and talking to its people is contained in a bunch of books, many of which were written back when the earth was still considered to be flat.
Because a great meny of the things that we observe happening can be readily explained by science, or at the very least wouldn't require an omnipotent deity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
His analogy holds up for both of those parts.
Yes, there are a great many things that sicence can explain, but it cannot explain everything. Yes, in the future, science will be able to explain a lot more things that right now, but <i>everything</i>? If you are waiting for science to be able to explain eveything, I suggest you don't hold your breath.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and here:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
[*]Interacting with the world.
[*]Speaking directly to people on his team.
Which also fulfills all of my requirements of a diety that interacts and can be 'known', at least in the relational sense.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only evidence we have for there being a supernatural being interacting with the world and talking to its people is contained in a bunch of books, many of which were written back when the earth was still considered to be flat.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. The evidence we have for God speaking to people is not just in the Bible, it is an experience shared by millions of people of different nationalities and different backgrounds all over the world. Are you seriously suggesting that they are all suffereing from a mass delusion? One so convincing that even the founders of this "delusion" were prepared to die for it? Where the founders of this delusion so convinced by thier own practical joke that they were prepared to give their lives for it? Did they honestly think that fooling lot of people was worth <i>dying</i> for?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact, the only way you'd know someone was sitting in the chair without that little blip would be if things started happening around you that could not be explained by any other means.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because they know it is probably dave sitting in a chair near the entrance to the base.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One so convincing that even the founders of this "delusion" were prepared to die for it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SS divisions in NAZI Germany would fight to the very last man in many cases and were widely reported to have almost no regard for their own life. Does that make Hitler a God too? People are easily manipulated and when you have an institutions that for thousands of years did exactly that all over Europe, the middle East etc, are you really so surprised you get hundreds of people believing something, regardless of if they made the decision if it was true or not for themselves?
I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours.
I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bad analogy that sets up a bad argument is still a bad analogy. If you don't want an analogy that can be attacked, then don't make an analogy that is sinking before it even gets put in the water.
I did both incidently and I never made an analogy, I just described what happens using the fiction of the NS universe. A large difference.
(Incidently, the point about the SS demonstrates a very simple concept, just because someone will die for it, doesn't make it right or correct).
I know somebody said somewhere that attacking the analogy is bad debating practice. It is not there to take the full force of an argument, but to illustrate the point. You can question how it illustrates the point, but attacking the analogy itself is just plain dirty. No analogy is perfect, not even yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bad analogy that sets up a bad argument is still a bad analogy. If you don't want an analogy that can be attacked, then don't make an analogy that is sinking before it even gets put in the water.
I did both incidently and I never made an analogy, I just described what happens using the fiction of the NS universe. A large difference. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was not how good or bad the analogy was (or the argument behind it). My point was that the analogy is there to make a point, not to be a target for people trying to skirt the main issue.
Yes, you could say that it is a bad analogy because the commander sits down and has lunch with the rest of the marines, but Legionnaired wasn't talking about that. He specifically said "gameplay". Yes, he was reffering to the commchair, but any sensible person would then go on to realise that he is reffering to a game situation, not a mess-hall. Therefore, your point about the commander having lunch is not arguing the point of the analogy, so it is attacking the analogy itself.
(And I never said you made a specific analogy, just that whichever one you do make won't be perfect)
Missed point++
Versilimilitude dictates that either way his analogy is flawed and ultimately worthless for two main premises:
1 Unlike God, the marine commander exists in the gameworld as a physical entity that can be seen, interacted with and heard at any time.
2 Unlike God, the marine commander has a fixed position while commanding and can be directly visited, viewed and even CHANGED as the situation dictates.
Premise 1 supports premise 2, which itself supports premise 1. Therefore the analogy, and by default the argument the analogy is being used to support, is rendered invalid.
There. Simple stuff.
The other main problem of the analogy is that is not actually analogous to the discussion. God does not interact in peoples lives directly and there isn't evidence to support that, without falling back into a "prove/disprove God" argument which we are already aware is pointless.
Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean it can't be explained, just that we dont yet have sufficient knowledge to explain it. We can't just go around blaming everything we can't immediatly explain on God.
The problem here is that in general when someone says "God speaks to me" it is really a euphemism for "I think God spoke to me through some feelings or thoughts I had".
Many people have these feelings, sure. But they're not all of the same religion. So ultimately where does that leave us as to which one is "right" ?
I also don't think such feelings are limited to religion per se, but rather engaging in activites that allow you to simply "be" for a time. Whether that be playing a sport or dancing up a storm - anything that frees you from the concerns of meaning and day to day worries - would generate such a feeling IMO.
People are willing to die for many reasons - sometimes even to help a complete stranger.
Atoms, NS Commanders and all the other various analogies just don't work as it is possible to get evidence for their existence (even if its not first hand evidence, its hard to lean on an atom but its possible to view one as has already been pointed out).
The only analogies that work for God are ludicrous. Did you know I have a pink and purple dragon thats covered in horns living in my shed? Well, I say pink and purple but you can't actually see it... and those horns, well it definitely has them but you can't touch them because they are intangiable. I know its there though!
See what I mean? Ludicrous.
There is absolutely no proof for god, you can't use your own experiences because there are plenty of people who can trick themselves into feeling things that don't exist. Hell, people can cure themselves with placebo's, Stigmata change places depending on your favourite crucifix, aliens abduct rednecks so they can stick stuff up their... noses. I've <i>seen</i> people speaking in tongues and fainting from being 'touched by the lord' when they are simply being tricked by charlatans.
People can convince themselves of anything. Yes, I know that you can use that argument against athiests as well, that we are so convinced that we blind ourselves to the truth etc but thats exactly my point. There is no proof for or against a God, it just depends on how you feel and I personally think the idea of some supernatural beard looking down on me is, as nice as it might be, simply a comfort blanket for the gullible and superstitious (yes, that includes really sceptical and intelligent people who believe as well, we all make mistakes).
So far, nobody has been able to define God. At best, God seems to be utterly unknowable.
While certain things like "strings" or protons cannot be seen, noone is claiming that strings have emotion. They serve a purpose*, but they don't have an agenda. God would seem to.
I can believe in a god that doesn't intefere in our lives in any way; an observer who watches but not acts. I think that attributing human factors to a god, though, makes him a lot less believable (in my eyes). I don't see how you can be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and perfect while retaining anything of humanity. There's certainly nothing to prove that He loves us, even if He exists.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I believe strings are meant to be the building blocks of the universe, but I can't fully remember as it's been a while since I've heard anything about it. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.</span>
In the end religion is an entirely selfish thing, you worship so that you can live for ever, become powerful and to get absolution/avoid responsibility.
A God like you said may well exist but why pray to it?