Brovo said
Think for a moment about what what has just been said in this section before we continue to the rest. It's very malleable--that is, it's very... Non-concrete, lacking any sort of force or specific idea. Essentially: You're saying that there are numerous potential answers and that any of those options could be right or wrong, in any kind of combination.The Bible, on the other hand, is the piece I'm arguing against generally here. It's very concrete in its answers--believe in God is a repeated message throughout. I can't argue against all religion because I just don't think I could learn the details of every single one and then form some kind of argument. Only the ones I know, can I argue
I think you misread, I said 'there are numerous ways of coming to an answer, and there is nothing to say any are wrong or right.'
The journey is where the difference is, rather than the answer itself. People in history have all gone on a spiritual journey to find a God, from Buddha, to Abraham to Muhammed and various other historical religious leaders. We cannot say for certain that they all knew much about each other as they were separated by space and time, but many came to the conclusion that through the pursuit of knowledge and 'enlightenment', through following certain - frighteningly similar - ways of life, one could gain the greatest knowledge, Nirvana, Yaqeen, Oneness with the Spirit of God etc.
Of course belief in God would be the message of the Bible, it is the 'answer' but there is nothing to say that the way the Bible preaches is the correct way, or if the God of the Bible is the correct God. That takes exploration. And truly, I think you constrict yourself greatly by arguing within the pages the Bible, allow yourself more freedom, just as you explore Christianity searching for faults, turn your eye to other religions. It is a truly interesting thing to do. The pursuit of knowledge is as worthy a cause as any, and who knows, maybe the ancients are right, maybe there is some kind of 'enlightenment' waiting for us once we amass enough knowledge and have philosophised ourselves into a cave.
Brovo said
Erm, no. A test can easily be given to you for you to solve. School gives out plenty of tests, for example, that blatantly state "TEST [subject] ##" on them.Now while there are tests whose point is not to be revealed until the end, the idea that life is a test, is merely belief. There's no evidence to back that up and so, as someone who places his faith in the rational, I can't accept it. I won't even try to deny others who see it that way, because faith-based arguments are unassailable and it's foolhardy to try, but I myself... Just can't.
Apologies, that sentence, as I look back on it, doesn't convey my meaning as I wanted it to. Of course we know we are doing a test while we are doing it. That is obvious, we are sat down in a hall and told to write for who knows how long. I meant that the one thing we don't know in a test is the exact, correct answer. We can guess, we can use logic, we can use previous knowledge, but we can never know with concrete certainty that the answer we put down is going to be right or will gain the maximum marks, else we would all pass our exams with flying colours and no one would fail. We only known the correct answer after the exam is over. We will only ever know, for certain, that God exists once we die. And if he doesn't exist, we don't even get the satisfaction of laughing at those who thought he did, because then we don't exist either.
Of course, whether this world is a test or not is open to debate, but before that can be established we need to establish whether the one who made the test exists or not. And that's the bigger debate. I completely agree with you, blind faith, unquestioning belief, is quite possibly the most irritating thing in existence. I cannot stand fools, let alone blind ones, as the wise man once said, 'Never argue with a fool - they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.' and nothing is worse than a victorious fool
Brovo said
Oh, even putting aside religion, the argument of free will versus destiny or human nature or memory is absolutely mind numbing even if you do know all the factors in play (which I openly admit I generally don't). For example: Hard determinism versus soft determinism, Tabula Rasa, nature versus nurture, the two door paradox, choice versus knowledge... What I -do- know, though, is this: If the future is premapped, that is, if someone can see into the future with any sort of certainty (a qualification for omniscience), then free will is merely an illusion, in the same sense that no matter how many times you watch Frodo reach Mount Doom he will never be able to change the fact that he will succumb to wearing the ring and then have his finger bitten off for it. After that it becomes the argument of hard determinism versus soft determinism, that is, do you have any flexibility in how you reach your ultimate course, can you change your course once you know it, and so on and so on. Ironically this is why the ending of Bioshock Infinite tends to confuse people who don't understand that it's a significant plot hole, because the universe constantly tells you that it's hard determined and yet the future changes. Oops.
I personally don't know the inner-weavings of the debate, but I know that if somebody jumped out of a time machine and told me, right now, that I am going to get full marks in my exams, that they've seen it, I would fail just to spite them. If I do get full marks despite no revision, I'd be pretty chuffed though. Hmm...suddenly want to read Invictus...
Brovo said
Also depending on the version. Some Bibles just go "they go to hell and burn" some add "eternally". I don't know enough about Biblical history to know why that is. Mine tends to be limited to major events, like the separation of the catholic and orthodox churches, the rise of islam, protestantism, the great awakening in north america, and so on.
I don't think it is a big mystery really, priests, bishops, preachers, academics in the field of religion all admit it, the Bible has been changed countless times over the ages by more human hands can be counted. Today none of the main Christian denominations accept the Bibles of the other main denominations, the Catholic Bible includes books which Protestants don't recognise, and the Orthodox Church includes books which neither Catholics nor Protestants accept. It's no wonder that when you say 'The Bible says this: '[quote]'' someone will undoubtedly come up and say, 'no, it doesn't' because there is no one Bible, there are many Bibles. I don't think any other 'divine' book in the world, from my research thus far, faces this problem.
Brovo said
Eh'... Evidence isn't really personal. Evidence is as non-personal as it gets: If the evidence points to the innocent looking woman committing a murder, then 99 times out of 100, it's probably the woman who did it assuming the evidence isn't rigged. One can have personal , but evidence, as in defined as something that all can see and universally understand (ex: fingerprints), is never personal.
I may have mis-worded. Evidence, in and of itself, cannot be said to be personal, I agree. What is personal is whether we choose to accept evidence or not. You can wave equations and proofs and theories at people all you want, but if people simply don't care for your scientific evidence, no one is going to believe you. Luckily we live in a society which embraces the acceptance of evidence, and even now, people don't accept scientific theories because they are convinced of them, but because everyone else says they're true and scientists can talk at length showing a great amount of complicated and un-understandable evidence at which the lay person can nod and pretend to be convinced.
When it comes to the existence of God, whether a person accepts the evidence given to them or not is very personal. While for one person contemplating at how amazing the world is can be enough evidence, for someone else it is not. While for one person, studying religious books and analysing their scientific claims can generate enough evidence to believe in God, for another person it may not be. So I agree with you, evidence itself isn't personal, the factors dictating whether we believe it or not are personal, especially in the context of a God-debate.
Brovo said
Why yes, good chap, that is a healthy view of things. It's why I stick to the rational, I know things will change as our understanding of the universe grows and that makes it extremely exciting. Maybe we'll find out our creators were really unisex aliens who made us to figure out what would happen if you created creatures with two genders and biologically made them different. Or maybe there is a god but he's not this all wise and omniscient god, maybe he's like... A child and he created this... Fantastical, fantasy-like universe, and maybe all those mythological stories we have of like dragons and faeries and so on were all once real but he retconned them over time and the mythos is all we have left of the non-canon stuff, and people who go to heaven are his friends who tell him about mortality and pain and emotions and feelings and weakness and things he can't intrinsically understand.All really interesting shit I can't disprove but won't believe until otherwise proven, though.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But as neither aliens nor all-powerful children have left much of a mark on our world, so far as we can see, I don't think they are currently a viable potential deity to explore the existence thereof. I think I prefer exploring the much more material books and codes in existence which billions believe are in someway divine and which actually call for people to read them. The flying spaghetti monster, aliens, omnipotent children and the invisible pink unicorn have yet to reveal their divine scriptures upon our ever waiting hearts
Brovo said
Because there is none. There is literally none. Zero. Zip. Nothing. It doesn't exist. The whole point of religion is the faith part of it. That's what makes it religion and not truth: Faith. If you need evidence to back up your faith you're doing it wrong.Seriously I can't prove nothingness except to point at it and say "look, nothing."
EDIT
Come to think of it, Russell's Teapot. Look it up.
That is rather extreme don't you think? There are people far more knowing than either of us who have seen that there is sufficient evidence to believe in a God, just as there are those far more knowing than either of us who have decided that there is no evidence. I don't think we should ever decide that there is zero evidence for the existence of a God, to do so is rather disrespectful to those who wake up every morning and pray to a God they genuinely believe exists, futile and pitiful as their 'state of ignorance' may appear to us. In the end, if science has not managed to wipe out religion, there must be more than just blind belief and faith keeping religion entrenched, these people who believe in religions must genuinely see something we're not. That is why we must continue exploring. We must open up our feelings and allow our most basic beliefs to be challenged and questioned with all sincerity. We must question our beliefs just as intensely as we do those of others. If they survive the grueling experience and still convince you, then go bravely go, for you shall never need to shield them from anything ever again, let all other ideologies assault them, and if they emerge unchanged then truly they must be perfect, and if they emerge changed, then surely they are one step closer to perfection.
I hope I am not coming across as some irrational hippy whose had a bit too much weed here
I just think that just as we must be rational and logical, we must not forget that humans have emotions and can be rather deep-thinking. A deepness which the scientific method can sometimes overlook, for it is curiousity and that very deepness and desire for knowledge which first gave rise to the scientific method as we know it.
Frettzo,
Vec,
Lord Zee,
Double Capybara
it is an art to maintain such an insufferably smug and condescending tone, don't you think?
