I'm not, and I don't like organized Religion. How about others?

Tnx

I'm very--but I don't like organized religion. I haven't been to a church in a few years, but I pretty regularly bible study, read things written by theologians, listen to a bunch of pastors with different views (online), have taken a dozen or so different theology classes, and hope to learn hebrew and greek someday. It makes me chuckle every time people ask "do you go to church often?" as their standard to gauge how "serious" you are about your beliefs. "So, what you're saying is that you're an SJ? I see."

Cryptonia, I think you will like this site.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/

hmm... thanks.

As a general rule, I'm usually pretty critical of theological proofs (Pascale's wager, seriously? Why is this thing studied in your intro philosophy classes?), but I'll check it out.

As a general rule, I'm usually pretty critical of theological proofs (Pascale's wager, seriously? Why is this thing studied in your intro philosophy classes?), but I'll check it out.

Because people still use the same arguments. People use the same arguments over the last 2,000 years. They are cycled and have a slightly new spin. If you talk to someone why they believe in certain things, many arguments will appear over and over again. Once you can recognize those arguments, you already know your retort, and thiers retort. You'll often be able to quote to them the greatest thinkers on the subject and how they argued.

Once I know what "truths" people believe, I know what arguments they are going to use and "see" many steps down the line. Kind of like when Gary Kasparov when he plays chess.

I love that some people can believe in something full heartedly(spelling?). I do not like people who go so far that they abuse others because of a difference in opinion(Whatever any of the two believe in). I do not like when an ideological, political or theological question is driven by money to make profits. The church has been indoctrinating very many people to do these two last said things, thats the reason I dislike groups who distance themself from others because of beliefs. Everyone has to learn from one another.

I associated to a quote, I'm not sure why I know it, that was said by the Nobel Prize winner George Bernard Shaw.
“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy”.//

Why did I associate to this quote? Because Patriotism has a main basis that "We're the ones who has the answer, now we must impose it to the world". Or something like that( I love traditions, really do, but it has nothing to do with what the word Patriotism stands for). Wow, I got off-topic here.

No, I do not believe in any particulary God or Religion. I fully understand that some do, and I do not say they are wrong, I just wish them to see everything with criticism but also being very open minded.

I hope no one got offended of what I wrote. If someone did, please let me know.

Wow, I got off-topic here.

lol we are ENFPs off topic is on topic .

I know some enfps that are religious and not. I'm not sure if there is a determinable pattern.

I agree. Religion is Platonism for the masses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

nah, not offended at all . If people are legitimate and fair in their points, I don't mind arguing things at all. To be honest, I don't see much difference between religion and philosophy. er... at all. Religion gets taken and misused often, and has a nasty history committed by the people who follow it, and gives people an excuse to turn nasty (like you said, "we have the answer, so lets go impose it on people," while philosophy often doesn't... since it's all about the unanswered questions and stuff... but the ideas themselves aren't really a whole lot different. They make different metaphysical claims, deal also with ethics and epistemology, etc. You'd probably be surprised to find out that very large chunks of the new testament (bible) are actually arguments being made by Paul for various theologies. Of course, arguments are made attempting to convince your audience, and since we don't have any central "root" to argue from, all arguments (ought to) start with premises that both people agree on, and move from there.... so when 2000 years of culture passes, we have little in common with the people Paul wrote to, and so not many people really recognize them as arguments anymore. All the same, though, arguments are what they were meant to be. Maybe it's just the T in me, rather than the F, but the history of misuse by religious people doesn't actually put me off from the religion-ideas at all.

Though I should be clear: a lot of stuff gets blamed on religion that isn't so much it's fault at all, when atrocities are attributed to it. The persecution surrounding Galileo, for instance, was primarily because his findings destroyed the popular philosophical claims and arguments (evident in The Almagest by Ptolemy, Aristotle's Physics, and even Euclid's Elements, to an extent) that had existed for thousands of years, which religion adopted as accurate. Galileo kinda pissed off everybody, but the church takes most of the blame today.

Er... sorry. Still, I'm not about to try to excuse them from stuff--that'd be pretty stupid :p


I also just finished reading the "teleological argument" section of that website (and all the arguments before it). Out of curiosity, what do you (or other people) take to be the counter-argument for http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/ ? Also (tho this probly fits better in the science section), what about the third argument listed on http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/maths-and-the-finitude-of-the-past/ ? I think that scientists were suggesting that they thought that the universe may have had an infinite past (in a big bang/big crunch repetitive scenario), and I think that the first two arguments on that page to be misconceptions about infinity...y'know... philosophers making math arguments doesn't always work too well... but what about the third one? Have you read or thought much about it?

Wow, hmm, trying to answer this at 5 in the morning.

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

In my opinion this(these) arguments breaks down at the fourth point. The argument becomes very hmm, subjective? Why would God suddenly be the "reason" for universal interaction? (Sorry for my bad english, english is not my first language.) I'm still not saying that God DOESN'T exist. Let's take the word existence. Existence for me is something that I see, or just in my conscience, knows that "it" exists for me to feel, touch, smell, think about and so on. For a catholic the word is much, much more divine - existence can mean sins, praying, jesus, church and so on.

What does "Reason" MEAN anyway? We can't say, it's very subjective. For a catholic the word is problably very much stronger than it is to me, when talking about "trying-to-explain-everything" matters.

Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning.

Good argument! To much for my head right now, but I don't think that finity is explaining god nor does infinity disprove him. If there is a beginning then there must have been an end before that? And if something ends, something new must always appear? If God created the universe at one point, what did he end doing before that? He must've existed before the beginning to be able to create it. It all just goes around and around, it's like calcuating infinity.

Now bed, laters.

well, I kind of took that to mean that since we don't know anything about God... but since the argument doesn't even touch on any sorts of properties he might have, "reason for the universe's existence" is a good place to start. I think you might have a point, in that our universe could have been sparked into being when other rippling, pseudo-parallel universes bumped into each other (or at least, that's something I saw as a possibility on some science/philosophy show a long time back), but that still seems to push the problem back a level, unless the cause of the universe is both necessary and not-God.

What does "Reason" MEAN anyway? We can't say, it's very subjective. For a catholic the word is problably very much stronger than it is to me, when talking about "trying-to-explain-everything" matters.

I was thinking about this, too, an realized that even in the scientific sense, existence of a contingent thing requires a reason--a cause. Our best observations show that every system always tends towards whatever state requires the least amount of energy. Matter is just another form of energy. It makes sense, if the energy was already extant in some other form, for it to "settle" into matter (E = mc^2... so mass is a very, very "low" form of energy... so no different than an already-existing electron moving into a low-energy distance away from an already-existing nucleus), but I still don't see any reason why energy is "necessary," and "not energy" is a lower energy state than "energy." You don't get energy in a system unless something else puts it there.

Even... if you continue the regression back, whatever scientific reason might get discovered for the existence of our universe must contain more (or at least as much--but if that's the case than it doesn't exist anymore) energy as the universe itself... and whatever reason might be discovered for that must have more energy still. No matter how many levels you take it, it seems like there has to be something, made of neither matter nor energy, to get the energy to exist in the first place. Like an energy-generating machine with infinite efficiency--having no energy in itself (if you buy the premise that matter/energy are contingent, that is), but being able to generate incredible (to us) amounts of it.

This just got me really excited

Good argument! To much for my head right now, but I don't think that finity is explaining god nor does infinity disprove him.

Right, right. Sorry, I didn't mean it to. I just stumbled on that argument because it was trying to prove a premise for a different argument (which I didn't list) for God. They gave 3 arguments for a finite past, but the first two could be discredited out with some decent calculus knowledge. That definitely comes up in arguments a lot, though, where people seem to say "if you think "God has existed forever" is a legitimate possibility, than "the universe has existed forever" is too." That may not be true, if this argument is a good one, because we know nothing of God's properties--namely how time works--but we do know that "time happens" in our reality. Like I said, the first two arguments were lousy... but I wasn't sure what to do about that third one at all. If it's a good one, then proving that time must have a beginning probably has huge implications for stuff like physics--not to mention it's a pretty freaking awesome thing to be able to craft a good argument for when talking to people .

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

It all breaks down at 1# for me, Why does existence presuppose a reason?

Posted By sbalbom on 27 Jul 2009 08:13 PM

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

It all breaks down at 1# for me, Why does existence presuppose a reason?

That is a very valid question. I guess these neverending discussions about God, existence and the reason for everything is still going on because of the humans "underdeveloped" language for explaining everything and of how we are raised to perceive these words. I would say we all live for a reason, but not in any divine way, just my own personal point of view of life and love. Some people may see that nothing exists for a reason, just trying to see everything with simplicity that it's only matter and energy combined into random stuff - and least, some think it's a test.

I would say we all live for a reason, but not in any divine way, just my own personal point of view of life and love. Some people may see that nothing exists for a reason, just trying to see everything with simplicity that it's only matter and energy combined into random stuff

Ok. Understood.

Let me quote ENFP guys signature:

"The overman...Who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment." Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh... beautiful. I gotta read more Nietzche.

Posted By Tannhauser on 27 Jul 2009 10:43 PM
Oh... beautiful. I gotta read more Nietzche.

haha my work here is done!

I guess... hmm. I guess, I understand the concern with that 1st premise, but... well, sort of like I alluded to in my last post, everything that we observe around us, in physics, points to non-existence is what we would expect, looking at matter. It's like... if a ball were laying on the ground, you might ask "how did this end up here?" and it would be reasonable to assume that there was no intent/reason (not talking about the ball's existence... just its location). Perhaps it rolled down a hill while nobody was looking, and eventually stopped there. If you were to see a ball fall by your window while flying in an airplane, however, it is not reasonable to think "it just ended up there." Balls don't just "get" 20,000 feet in the air without some external force.

The reason I think that it's not reasonable to assume "it just ended up there" is because, when placed in open air, stuff falls towards the ground. It takes lots of energy to move a ball that high into the air, and to our knowledge, there's no spontaneous process that "gets" balls into the air. When it comes to matter's existence, we have a similar problem. The universe is like us, liking to do as little as work as possible... and matter and energy are the same substance. It seems (imo) like existing matter is in a comparable state to a ball 20,000 feet in the air.

(I'm not usually interested in debating God's existence, and this is the first time I've ever tried this out, so just gimme a yell if I'm completely nonsensical)

Hello all,
To answer the very first question; yes, i am religious. Though the word "Religious" puts a bad taste in my mouth. That word has almost become synonymous with "Judgmental" or "Intolerant." So, when i say that I'm religious, I'm saying that I am someone who: believes in the existence of God, believes that the Bible is true, and believes that Jesus is God's Son. And that He sent his Son to die for us so that we can be with Him in Heaven forever.

Alrighty then, with that out of the way...

I think that there may be a misunderstanding about the argument brought up earlier:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

I think the misunderstanding (though the misunderstanding could be my own) is in the word "reason." It seems like many on this forum see the word "reason" as meaning "purpose." In this argument, i have always understood "reason" to mean "cause."

So basically, as i understand it, this argument is saying that everything in the universe has a cause, including the universe itself. Therefore, there must be something greater than this universe that has caused it.

And as for Tannhauser's issue with point number four in this argument, I agree. I think it's a big step to go from, "The Universe must have a reason" to "that reason is God." Now, i do believe that it was God who created the universe, but i don't think that this argument is enough to prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. It merely proves that there is something greater than the universe that created it. Whoever or whatever He or it may be is a completely different argument.

I would love to hear feedback about any of this. I'm really glad that i found this forum. Outside of this forum i am surrounded by Christians who have no idea why they believe what they believe. But, they will get quite loud if you question their beliefs. So, i'm excited to hear from people who actually think!

If this were a year ago, I would have pointed you to the INTP forum, too.... at the time, they had the highest quality religious debates I've ever seen online. Sadly, I think everyone who was interested got sick of them, and we all learned each others' views so well that we backed off for a while. They're pretty much inevitable on any forum, though, so at least here, while the forum's beginning, we can set the tone with respect and reason, and hopefully the atmosphere will carry that and prevent it from degenerating (like most other forums do).

I completely understand your aversion to using "religious" to describe yourself. It does make sense to me, but I tend to think "if a person I'm talking to can't overlook the connotation long enough to hear me say 'but I hate most churches, for different reasons,' then there wasn't much hope of the conversation going anywhere anyway." I do know some people who just refuse to call themselves religious, much for the same reasons you do, though, and I understand that, too.

I don't think this argument was intended to prove the Judeo-Christian God, at all. The site, at least, said that Aquinas and Leibniz supported it, but also Plato. Still, I thought it was a fair argument for some sort of deity--or at least something God-like enough that God is a viable thing to call it (since, after all, "God" has so many different character qualities in so many different religions that it's a pretty undefined term as it is).

I also share your relief at finding thinking Christians . It's like a breath of fresh air... and I practically live on thinking about these ideas (y'know... INTP), and talking with people about them. This is probably better put in an intro thread, if you make one, but do you live in the Southern US by any chance? Or, what are the people around you like?

I think the misunderstanding (though the misunderstanding could be my own) is in the word "reason." It seems like many on this forum see the word "reason" as meaning "purpose." In this argument, i have always understood "reason" to mean "cause."

So basically, as i understand it, this argument is saying that everything in the universe has a cause, including the universe itself.

Words are not misunderstood, there's just a difference of how people perceive them - I think

peh... it's getting deep.

I guess I associate the word "religious" with an SJ construct that distances people from a relationship-oriented spirituality. It is for people who participate in empty rituals, mutter the same prayers without meaning them, and go to a building to stare blankly into space, listening to an authority figure talking about God in the shallowest possible way. Those are the connotations for me, and I am hesitant to use that word.

I will not, however, hesitate to confess that I believe in God, and believe that His Son was resurrected and has the power to save us from our sins. I believe it is important to have a deeper personal relationship with God, to communicate with Him often through prayer, and to remain receptive and submissive. As an intuitive, I feel that God communicates with me through synchronicity, and also by the specific symbolic ways that he physically answers my prayers. It might happen differently for SJ types, and perhaps it is something they can only get through the kinds of situations I consider personally meaningless.