AnnaNymity Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Everybody, I originally ran into this quote by Leith at mcdaddy's Great Quotes thread. I decided to submit this as a new thread basically because I am opinionated as hell, but also curious about other people's viewpoints. Thanks for your quotes thread mcdaddy, because I'm a quote freak, and, thank you Leith for the great quote--it triggered all KINDS of opinions in me. (Okay, simply breathing triggers all kinds of opinions in me, but we don't need to go there right now.) There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some objective way. The only reason that believers claim that god can't be objectively detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. Douglas Adams Leith, I love that quote, because MY sense of "god" has always simply boiled down to the life force itself, which can be proven, at least as far as I'm concerned. This is one of the many reasons that I sucked so much at trying to believe in the christian version of god. I wished that things were different, and I tried to believe that they were different. (Or, should I say, "I pretended to try to believe that they were.") Yet, no matter what I ever did, no matter how hard I tried to believe in their version of god, logic would just smack me in the face, and say, "Nope. Nuh uh. You've gotta be kiddin' me." And then I'd always end up saying to my pastor, reverend, or priest, "God is supposed to be what? I'm really supposed to believe that?" And then I'd feel guilty, and wonder just what it was that I couldn't understand, and I'd think, "I can't. Too bad. So sad. So sorry, my bad--mea culpa." That's because I believe that the basic life force existence can be proven. That's what generates that beautiful little "bleep bleep" on a heart monitor, that says, "Yep, there's still somebody taking residence in this specific carbon-based unit, so don't toss 'em into the dumpster just yet." And, when that life force is gone, the system goes flat line for a reason. There's nobody home anymore. I mean, it's kind of a simple thing to verify that someone is dead--if for no other reason than the fact that they stink up the house, and have the decided tendency to explode if you don't throw a little dirt over them, or at least stick them into the Frigidaire. But that's it. That's all that can be "proven." I guess that you could just say that my version of "god" has always simply boiled down to the major electromagnetic impulse that all life itself is composed of. Call it "The Grand Poobah/Great Big Kahuna of All Life Forces," if you will. The Ultimate Energy. (I prefer to use the phrase "Ultimate Energy" instead of "Higher Power," but that's only because "Higher Power" always makes me think of General Electric for some reason.) Can I see this life force producing things like a sentient being, or a turnip or a carrot, and continuing to energize that life? Yes. Can I see it being something that empowers with positivity, as opposed to draining with negativity? Yes. (That last is one of the reasons that I "believe" in the power of all that is good, kind, caring and compassionate in the world, as opposed to its opposite--and I've certainly had to face enough evil in my day.) But, can I envision it doing things like writing books, causing natural disasters in retribution, zapping people in the ass with lightening bolts for daring to say words like "shit" or "fuck," or spending centuries of effort to accomplish the fulfillment of perverse machiavellian blood-drenched plots? No. I've just never been able to wrap my mind around worshipping an entity that is so vile, vindictive and putrid. I've just never quite understood why someone would want to. No-fucking-way. Too bad. So sad. So sorry, my bad--mea culpa. So, if you're feeling opinionated too: what's your take on the subject? Do you believe in the xtian version of "God"? Or simply a Higher Power, or an Ultimate Energy? Or do you prefer to simply stick with things that can be scientifically proven and documented--like the astonishing strength of the elastic in Pamela Anderson's bra, or the importance of anime or all things Trek? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I think that any and all "higher powers" will eventually be found to have logical explanations, and that seeking logical, empirical explanations will increase humanity's knowledge of the universe a thousandfold. That's why I assert that the scientific method is superior to mysticism if one is actually looking for a god. Mysticism, however, is a valid subjective venture in the same vein as art or music. Occasionally a believer insists that their god is "outside space and time." My preferred counter is to point out that if that were so, there should be some kind of energy imbalance or disturbance where that god interacts with the known universe. Until we find such a thing, I think it's reasonable to assume that either there's no one out there, or they can't get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 There is nothing that defines science is limited to the natural world if there is somthing beyond it. I am completly open to the super natural world but my stance on it is even if it cant be disproven it gives no warented reason to believe it, it can only be proven and be belivable. God is the product of human creation for human security needs, for a theistic God who is supposed to exist he is ominiously quiet and subjective for being a percuriator of the universe. There is no inclination to believe in YHWH even if theism is true. In fact anytime a theist claims there is some kind of devine revelation from "their God" you must throw up a red flag becuase as we have obeserved all theist Gods have major human qualities and are quite wastful when it comes to the size of the universe compared to whats needed. Very geocentric theism is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 There is nothing that defines science is limited to the natural world if there is something beyond it. So am I understanding you to say, that is possible for science or history to "prove'' the supernatural? So I guess, demons are now on the table again to explain illness, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Science, and history, archeology, etc, are methodologically natural (hard and soft) sciences. You can't really make any claims to mystical stuff via that. Sure you could say, a demon causes depression, but you can't really prove or disprove that. But antidepressants generally work. That is just one example of why, most fields of inquiry outside of theology are methodologically naturalist fields. Believe what is provable and you can see agrees with reality. That is how most people operate anyway, right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 There is nothing that defines science is limited to the natural world if there is something beyond it. So am I understanding you to say, that is possible for science or history to "prove'' the supernatural? So I guess, demons are now on the table again to explain illness, right. Dont take it like that, i meant if there is some way for science to observe the supernatural world it will, i didnt say it did now and i didnt say that demons where the cause of illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 You will find Valk i am highly skeptical of any mystisism and "magic" or some theistic God, but there is no rule that if these things where true we couldent view them in the future, though i dont think there is any inclination that we will and so far we have reason to belive we cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 There is nothing that defines science is limited to the natural world if there is something beyond it. So am I understanding you to say, that is possible for science or history to "prove'' the supernatural? So I guess, demons are now on the table again to explain illness, right. Dont take it like that, i meant if there is some way for science to observe the supernatural world it will, i didnt say it did now and i didnt say that demons where the cause of illness. Ahh my mistake, I misunderstood you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 You will find Valk i am highly skeptical of any mystisism and "magic" or some theistic God, but there is no rule that if these things where true we couldent view them in the future, though i dont think there is any inclination that we will and so far we have reason to belive we cant. Well, i don't say the natural world is the only thing that exists for 100 percent certainity, but its going to take a hell alot more then we really got to prove it on the same level as say the theory of evolution. Unless of course you start fiddling around with terms like, what is a miracle, etc. At best I can say, the supernatural is a nonscientific question. Science can't prove or disprove, god, resurrections, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I really have a hard time imagining what this "Ultimate Energy" or "Higher Power" would be. If you want think about it like a "Force", then I really don't know what you mean. I would need some better description to be able to make any statement about it. Is it impossible to give such a description? Then your "Force" is indistinguishable from nothing. If, however, you are able to assign qualities to this entity, such as consienceness or powers, then I would like some evidence for those claims. I won't believe in any supernatural entity unless I have evidence. And if there is evidence, science can say something about it. It won't be supernatural anymore, it becomes a part of nature, which we can investigate and study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I really have a hard time imagining what this "Ultimate Energy" or "Higher Power" would be. If you want think about it like a "Force", then I really don't know what you mean. I would need some better description to be able to make any statement about it. Is it impossible to give such a description? Then your "Force" is indistinguishable from nothing. If, however, you are able to assign qualities to this entity, such as consienceness or powers, then I would like some evidence for those claims. I won't believe in any supernatural entity unless I have evidence. And if there is evidence, science can say something about it. It won't be supernatural anymore, it becomes a part of nature, which we can investigate and study. You just need a standard for cause and effect, a infininte standard that itsself must have no cause and i think the quantum feild represents this in some way. I share your same opinion when it comes to a personal standard though apperintly cares about what we do in some way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnaNymity Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 I think that any and all "higher powers" will eventually be found to have logical explanations, and that seeking logical, empirical explanations will increase humanity's knowledge of the universe a thousandfold. That's why I assert that the scientific method is superior to mysticism if one is actually looking for a god. Mysticism, however, is a valid subjective venture in the same vein as art or music. Occasionally a believer insists that their god is "outside space and time." My preferred counter is to point out that if that were so, there should be some kind of energy imbalance or disturbance where that god interacts with the known universe. Until we find such a thing, I think it's reasonable to assume that either there's no one out there, or they can't get in. All that I know for an absolute proven fact is that hugging Teddy Bears during thunder storms is comforting. I also think that having delusions can also be very comforting, and are fine to have--just as long as they don't impact other people's rights. I'll tell you one thing though--if I reach the Great Hereafter and find out that Elvis really is god, I'm gonna be really pissed off that I never alowed myself to eat any peanut butter , banana, and bacon sandwiches! Other than that, the only thing that I know for an absolute fact is that I don't "know" a damn thing at all--and probably never will. But that's just fine with me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnaNymity Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 . . . Very geocentric theism is. Hear, Hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnaNymity Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 At best I can say, the supernatural is a nonscientific question. Science can't prove or disprove, god, resurrections, etc. I'm sorry Valk, but I'm stealing that quote! <grabs her pen to write it down > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnnaNymity Posted June 7, 2012 Author Share Posted June 7, 2012 I really have a hard time imagining what this "Ultimate Energy" or "Higher Power" would be. If you want think about it like a "Force", then I really don't know what you mean. I would need some better description to be able to make any statement about it. Is it impossible to give such a description? Then your "Force" is indistinguishable from nothing. If, however, you are able to assign qualities to this entity, such as consienceness or powers, then I would like some evidence for those claims. I won't believe in any supernatural entity unless I have evidence. And if there is evidence, science can say something about it. It won't be supernatural anymore, it becomes a part of nature, which we can investigate and study. I really have a hard time imagining what this "Ultimate Energy" or "Higher Power" would be. If you want think about it like a "Force", then I really don't know what you mean. I would need some better description to be able to make any statement about it. Is it impossible to give such a description? Then your "Force" is indistinguishable from nothing. If, however, you are able to assign qualities to this entity, such as consienceness or powers, then I would like some evidence for those claims. I won't believe in any supernatural entity unless I have evidence. And if there is evidence, science can say something about it. It won't be supernatural anymore, it becomes a part of nature, which we can investigate and study. No, I guess that I wasn't very clear--probably because my final comments weren't very clear, probably because I was being so sarcastic. lol My points, if you take them down to their elements, were simply that one, that's what I believe--not what I would ever even remotely expec someone else to believe. Besides, I guess that, given the fact that I'm a very analytical, linear, and logical person, I've always just seen a belief in god as being a lot like my earlier comment to astreja: "All that I know for an absolute proven fact is that hugging Teddy Bears during thunder storms is comforting. I also think that having delusions can also be very comforting, and are fine to have--just as long as they don't impact other people's rights." And secondly, I was simply wondering whether or not you believe in the christian version of god, or the admittedly wishy washy version of a Higher Power--or, as I call it, an Ultimate Source. Or, if you simply choose to believe in only that which can be scientifically proven--I was just being facetious with my "examples" of the astonishing strength of the elastic in Pamela Anderson's bra, or the importance of anime or all things Trek. lol In explanation, I'll just paraphrase the comment that I left for webmaster dave earlier today: I'm not sarcastic, I'm wittily ironic! The only problem is, that the message that I'm trying to get across just sometimes get lost because I'm being such a smart ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjessen Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I was simply wondering whether or not you believe in the christian version of god, or the admittedly wishy washy version of a Higher Power--or, as I call it, an Ultimate Source. Or, if you simply choose to believe in only that which can be scientifically proven... My thoughts are: I think there is a god who created our universe because of the laws and order I see. I think this god is loving because love exists and it is not self-centered or necessary for survival. I think this god is a good/kind god, because the creation generally evokes pleasant emotions in us: awe, wonder, appreciation, joy, etc. In other words the creation brings us pleasure. I think this god is intelligent because we are intelligent and nature teaches us many lessons about life. I guess I look at the relationship between nature and man and derive my thoughts on God based on that interaction. I don't think nature is God, as a Pantheist does (to my understanding). I think God is both outside of creation and also infuses nature with his presence. I think what I believe is closest to being Panentheism. What I observe and surmise from those observations coupled with what I feel leads me to this conclusion. That's not to say that I won't change my mind someday! But right now that is where I stand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts