[Lothring]

The Interview With God Presentation

Have you seen this presentation? And what you think about it? Why are we always unsatisfied?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Lothring

The Interview With God Presentation

Have you seen this presentation? And what you think about it? Why are we always unsatisfied?

What I find most depressing is that people must attribute some basic awareness of our humanity to some religious moment of clarity. Why do we, as a group of modern societies, NEED the existence of some supernatural force (that has no real relevance in the world), otherwise known as "god," to become aware of our own humanity? Are we not human? Even if god existed the way religious people claim, he would have swept us away a long time ago, given our ever-increasing ability to work horrors upon one another...Sodom? Gemorrah? Those were kindergardens compared to NYC and London...Nice set of principles and observations in the link...However, if that is the best god can do we are all in real trouble...

[dicknose]

Ive had conversations with religious people that involve them asking me about my morals - they seem confused as to how an athiest could have morals.
Um - I dont need fear of Hell to have morals.

My core morals probably arent so different from most religious people - the old "do unto others" is a great start for morals.
Ok Ill pass on some of the other judgements like homosexuality being wrong.

And I dont believe in evil - people do bad things, you dont need some external force to blame it on or to label people are evil.

Religion might give answers to why we are here and what happens after we die - but you can answer questions about morals, greed and many of the "evils" of society without needing religion.

And I think it should be clear to people that having a given religion ISNT the only way to be good. There have been great moral people of many different religions and even athiest/agnostics. Their religion and belief can play a part in it, but it still comes down to the individual person to make themselves good.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by dicknose

And I think it should be clear to people that having a given religion ISNT the only way to be good. There have been great moral people of many different religions and even athiest/agnostics. Their religion and belief can play a part in it, but it still comes down to the individual person to make themselves good.

I agree. Although some people's moral code might be informed by his or her religious beliefs, a particular religious dogma or system of belief is never necessary to have a moral code.

And, an awful lot of people have been killed in the name of god, while the killers are preaching peace, love, and acceptance, so I must question anyone who inulges in such hypocrisy.

[trippd]

I find that it reveals the heart & mind of God, who is love, & all of us on planet earth need this one, true, living God to know Him intimately!

[SIX]

Does it touch your heart??? Almost bringing tears to your eyes???

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by trippd

I find that it reveals the heart & mind of God, who is love, & all of us on planet earth need this one, true, living God to know Him intimately!

I am not sure what you are saying here...It seems like you are saying you need a god to believe in (another way to say know intimately) a god...That seems rather silly, right? Isn't the awareness of god actually a belief in his existence? I am not saying that one must be a disciple, but what you are saying seems like a tautology to me.

I think it really presumptuous to say anyone on this planet has any idea what the will/heart/mind of god is. Isn't god immortal? All powerful? All knowing and all things? Then, why are you limiting god to the vagaries of the human form? What makes you think god has a heart? A mind that could be comprehended by a simple creature like man? God trancends the human experience and human understanding.

I find it interesting that religious folks don't ask the (silly-sounding, I know; but still a reasonable) follow-up question...Who created god? Seriously. Where did god come from? See, as I see it, if god was always there, there is no explanation for the existence of the universe, but something created god, there is something to discover.

That is the weakness in all the scientific explanations for life as well...They all fail in the "why" area.
Science wins hands down in the "how" category, because since the middle ages the members of the secular world are the only group actually looking at chemical/biological/cosmological/physical processes for answers beyond "god said so." Sad, as before then, the members of the religious world were the ones actually investigating scientific/technological ideas, but it began to threaten religious dogma, so it was suppressed in the various faiths.

[lanbrown]

Originally Posted by trippd

I find that it reveals the heart & mind of God, who is love, & all of us on planet earth need this one, true, living God to know Him intimately!

Did god write it? If not, then it would be ones interpretation of gods thoughts. Look at the constitution, which was written over 200 years ago and yet people debate the wording.

Next, one true god? What about all of the religions, they all can’t possibly be right now can they? If they are, then there is not one true god. If only one is right, what happens if you chose poorly?

Why would god allow people to kill in his/her name?

What about slavery in the bible? Aren’t all created equal in the eyes of god?

[steingar]

Its a pity I can't get that wasted 90 seconds of my life back.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by analogbear

That is the weakness in all the scientific explanations for life as well...They all fail in the "why" area.
Science wins hands down in the "how" category.

Looking back at this, I suppose it not a failure, so much as a focus. The "how" in many pursuits can form the "why;" so by looking at the "how," scientists are really setting up a rational process for identifying the "why" without an irrational appeal to the baseless supernatural. Well done, science.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Looking back at this, I suppose it not a failure, so much as a focus. The "how" in many pursuits can form the "why;" so by looking at the "how," scientists are really setting up a rational process for identifying the "why" without an irrational appeal to the baseless supernatural. Well done, science.

One thing people seem to critise about science is that it doesnt know everything and even the bits it does know, it cant know if they are true.

This is not a weakness of science - it should be a strength.
Scientific development relies on there being more to find. Or that what we know might be wrong and a better answer is out there.

It can also lead to some confusion when a scientist says "the big bang might be wrong" - in that what they most likely mean is that the current view of big bang might need some adjusting, its unlikely to be totally wrong.
Most theories that are accepted but later shown to be wrong are often shown more to be an approximation that works in most cases but misses out on some extreme end cases. Take Newtons laws of gravity. They have been shown to be wrong and replaced by Einsteins general relativity (which we also know to be wrong, but dont have a working grand unified theory to improve it). But Newtons laws are still taught and still used for 99% of engineering calculations.
I could see the same thing happening with our current models for the Big Bang and even evolution. Something else comes along which really is a refinement, not a "that was wrong - what were we thinking"

One last thing on science. Many people dont understand how something is decided to be "correct" by science. Basically its by consensus of the scientists and specifically those who work in the fields involved. So it is sort of rigged in that evolutionary scientists are the ones who decided what is correct about evolution. While a elementary particle physicist doesnt really get any say in evolutionary theory!
It is sort of a popularity contest - the most popular theory wins.
And the measure of popularity is in terms of people doing research or publishing papers. If there is little competition (and evolution has virtually none) then you will find that the theory filters down to those who use it rather than research it.
And while intelligent design fans can drag up a few scientists who support it, it really doesnt count for much if they are from other fields. To win a head to head battle against evolution your supporters need to be experts in evolution to be able to show why evolution is wrong or missing. Being a biologist or physicist isnt enough of an expert to be able to convince evolutionary scientists. And they are the ones you need to convince. This might seem like preaching to the converted, but as scientists they should be able to be won over by facts and evidence - although history says this isnt always the case and many scientists have stuck with bad theories in the face of better ones. Even Einstein made his mistakes. But usually if something better does come along more (and especially newer) people will jump on board.
So IE supporters can say its science all they like. And that evolution is only "a theory". But unless you have a number of scientists publishing papers and doing research and progressing the theory then it doesnt fall into the category of "accepted science". It stays in the pile of other bits of science that is usually refered to as "crackpot"

[.OrgOwner]

This comes to mind..

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by .OrgOwner

This comes to mind..

Cool. But how do we find the answers to the unknown unknown, if we don't know about it and so can't ask the questions? I suspect there is an evolution of information here...That things progress from unknown unknowns into known unknowns, through other unknown knowns, and ultimately into known knowns.

Some cool quotes:

Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.

Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.

There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.

I do not believe it right for one group to impose its vision of morality on an entire society.

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

I've had people say to me, look at the sky, the fields, the ocean, the beautiful sunset. Isn't that proof positive of God? I reply, "Following that line of thought, look at the magnificent rainbows after a big rainstorm. Isn't that proof positive that God is gay?"

[.OrgOwner]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Cool. But how do we find the answers to the unknown unknown, if we don't know about it and so can't ask the questions? I suspect there is an evolution of information here...That things progress from unknown unknowns into known unknowns, through other unknown knowns, and ultimately into known knowns.

It hurts my little brain every time I start to think about it to be honest, I heard a sermon once where the minister argued total knowledge. His point was along the lines of this - if you took into account all the knowledge in the universe and then tried allocate a % that man has aquied in total you might be generous and give mankind 1% of all knowledge. That leaves a lot of space for god and a lot of other things in between. I guess when you think about trying to explain the concept of televsion to your dog it puts things into perspective - he's never going to get because his brain won't go there. Lucky dog I say. You can apply the same rule to mankind, we like to think we are smart like the dog...

[analogbear]

The problem with the percentage thing is the assumption that there is a "jigsaw" of knowledge, with neat little percentages that are distinct. However, if mild observation has shown us anything, it showed us that just about everything in the known universe interracts or has an effect on something/everything else-therefore it is "evident." So, god would have an observable effect beyond the hearsay of religious dogma, and would be intertwined with the 1% of human knowledge in a rational way, rather than an emotional way.

[ratchetman]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I think it really presumptuous to say anyone on this planet has any idea what the will/heart/mind of god is. Isn't god immortal? All powerful? All knowing and all things? Then, why are you limiting god to the vagaries of the human form? What makes you think god has a heart? A mind that could be comprehended by a simple creature like man? God trancends the human experience and human understanding.

I find it interesting that religious folks don't ask the (silly-sounding, I know; but still a reasonable) follow-up question...Who created god? Seriously. Where did god come from? See, as I see it, if god was always there, there is no explanation for the existence of the universe, but something created god, there is something to discover.

Yes the presentation is presumptuous. However we are made in the image of God. Therefore the fact that we have feelings and emotions is because God does and we are made in his image. And no God does not have a mind that can be comprehended by man.

As for the question, who created God? That is a preposterous question. God has always been, he is timeless. How can we the finite understand the infinite. You think that if God is to be found, that he is to be found on your terms, or some other human contrived terms. That is even more presumptuous than the presentation. If he is God would it not be logical that he would be found on his own terms? He did say "you will find me when you look for me with all your heart".

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Cool. But how do we find the answers to the unknown unknown, if we don't know about it and so can't ask the questions? I suspect there is an evolution of information here...That things progress from unknown unknowns into known unknowns, through other unknown knowns, and ultimately into known knowns.

Some cool quotes:

Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.

Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.

There is nothing more horrible than the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts.

I do not believe it right for one group to impose its vision of morality on an entire society.

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.

I've had people say to me, look at the sky, the fields, the ocean, the beautiful sunset. Isn't that proof positive of God? I reply, "Following that line of thought, look at the magnificent rainbows after a big rainstorm. Isn't that proof positive that God is gay?"

Check out some of these quotes, R-man.

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Yes the presentation is presumptuous. However we are made in the image of God. Therefore the fact that we have feelings and emotions is because God does and we are made in his image. And no God does not have a mind that can be comprehended by man.

As for the question, who created God? That is a preposterous question. God has always been, he is timeless. How can we the finite understand the infinite. You think that if God is to be found, that he is to be found on your terms, or some other human contrived terms.

How, but on my terms, could I find god? I certainly can't find him on his if he is incomprehensible.

[Mogolf]

Originally Posted by ratchetman

Yes the presentation is presumptuous. However we are made in the image of God. Therefore the fact that we have feelings and emotions is because God does and we are made in his image. And no God does not have a mind that can be comprehended by man.

As for the question, who created God? That is a preposterous question. God has always been, he is timeless. How can we the finite understand the infinite. You think that if God is to be found, that he is to be found on your terms, or some other human contrived terms. That is even more presumptuous than the presentation. If he is God would it not be logical that he would be found on his own terms? He did say "you will find me when you look for me with all your heart".

amen.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by Mogolf

amen.

I suppose the problem here is that you are subscribing to an untenable position. The fundamental problem beneath that is that there is an assumption that god exists. That is something that can't be established as real, so it falls to emotion. I refuse on principle to allow emotions to influence how I deal with people besides my family.

[analogbear]

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

I like that.
And this:

Has creation a final purpose at all, and if so why is it not attained immediately, why does perfection not exist from the very beginning?

[analogbear]

And finally:

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas -- uncertainty, progress, change -- into crimes.

[dicknose]

It does seem odd to me that a god desired to be worshipped.
And saying it is to test our faith just seems odd. If he is all powerful just pop by, say hello and make it obvious - why play games?

With so many different religions most of us are going to be wrong. And lets face it - most people with faith will have the same faith as their parents, so what you believe in is most likely decided not by you but by some quirk of what is your parents religion.

I can see arguments for why we should be morally good people. But why would an all powerful god require you to believe in him? The only logic I can see behind that is that organised religions require you to belong to them.

[Mogolf]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I suppose the problem here is that you are subscribing to an untenable position. The fundamental problem beneath that is that there is an assumption that god exists. That is something that can't be established as real, so it falls to emotion. I refuse on principle to allow emotions to influence how I deal with people besides my family.

There's no assumption from where I stand. That's why it's called FAITH my friend. And it is real whether you chose to believe or not.