If you believe in God...

[Perunovsin]

There's no way for you to say with certainty that the world is "terrible" and "cold", like, you would have to evaluate all the good and bad things about the world, come to a conclusion as to the importance of such things (like, does the happiness of children and the sadness of adults hold the same level of importance in the grand scheme of things?), and you can't do those things without objective metrics, points of reference, which we don't have since there's not another planet with rational living beings for us to compare their situation to ours (at least, not that we know about).

Now answering your two other questions, about there's not being a "proof" for God's existence and why he doesn't "show" himself: Well, most theories actually don't have a definitive proof, we accept them because they work well with our current framework for thinking certain things, like imaginary numbers in Maths and most of Quantum Physics, religion is another framework in a way, and it works well to explain certain things, so there's really no need for a "proof" of God's existence to the people that believe in God...

That also responds your objection about God doesn't showing himself, since empirical knowledge is not necessary to work within certain frameworks of thought.

Well explained, for a certain framework

[Celestia]

The problem isn't knowledge. Angels have knowledge of more things than any human can know about probably. The problem is sin. The point is that they sinned when they bit into the apple because God commanded them not to eat it, and then sin entered into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12

The problem of man is always described as sin in the Bible, not knowledge or knowledge of evil. If the problem was knowledge/knowledge of what's evil then Christ was crucified for nothing. Because it says Christ (Who is God as a human/in the flesh) died for sinners and took upon the sins of the all men and the punishment for sins so they may be saved, because the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God/Hell. And all men have sinned.

Very good summarization. I’m on my phone so I can’t expand too much into depth but another perception of mine is like the “ignorance is bliss” motto. “Eve picked the forbidden fruit and ate it. Adam was with her and he ate it, too. Their eyes were opened and their innocence, lost. They ran from God and His presence soon after, and were expelled from the garden, paradise lost.“

I find it interesting how there’s a huge correlation between depression and higher IQ.

Knowledge isn’t what’s good or bad. It’s how we use it. (sins vs morals)

[JamesBond007]

There's no way for you to say with certainty that the world is "terrible" and "cold", like, you would have to evaluate all the good and bad things about the world, come to a conclusion as to the importance of such things (like, does the happiness of children and the sadness of adults hold the same level of importance in the grand scheme of things?), and you can't do those things without objective metrics, points of reference, which we don't have since there's not another planet with rational living beings for us to compare their situation to ours (at least, not that we know about).

Humans are clearly inferior and highly flawed. For instance, Homo erectus, ‘Upright Man’, survived for close to 2 million years, making them the most durable human or human-like species ever. This record is not very likely to be broken even by our own species : homo-sapiens. It is very doubtful whether Homo sapiens will still be around a thousand years from now, so 2 million years is really out of our league.

Homo-Sapiens are so inferior and flawed that we will be likely exterminated within 1,000 years by a super human race of the genus homo made superior through biological engineering, cyborg engineering (cyborgs are beings that combine organic with non-organic parts) or the engineering of inorganic life etc..

Because we now know that the earth is but a tiny speck of dust in an unfathomably large universe, the notion that human beings are "special creations of God", and in particular are so important that God "gave his only begotten Son" for their "salvation" now seems like such palpable nonsense that anyone who believes it would have to be demented. And inasmuch as all the major religions are built around the notion that they are "special creations" of the Creator of the Universe, we can forthwith assign all such religions to the dustbin of superstition. The argument here is evidently much like what Bertrand Russell had in mind when he said, "That God would bother with humans proves that he is demented; that he is demented proves that he does not exist." --JBR

Now answering your two other questions, about there's not being a "proof" for God's existence and why he doesn't "show" himself: Well, most theories actually don't have a definitive proof, we accept them because they work well with our current framework for thinking certain things, like imaginary numbers in Maths and most of Quantum Physics, religion is another framework in a way, and it works well to explain certain things, so there's really no need for a "proof" of God's existence to the people that believe in God...

That also responds your objection about God doesn't showing himself, since empirical knowledge is not necessary to work within certain frameworks of thought.

Imaginary numbers aren't a theory genius and they can be proven to exist within the framework of pure mathematics -- the theorem (not theory) can be proved from fundamental axioms. That it is useful for engineering of electronics etc.. is just a coincidence.

Religion is another framework a primitive outdated one :

Science is different from most religions in the way it makes 'converts', and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.

...

Scientific theories are ones which are supposedly objectively-verifiable by any person of sufficient skill -- a fact reflected in the custom that a theory is not accepted as scientifically correct or useful unless it has been judged publishable in a scientific journal by the author's scientific peers, and experimentally verified by another scientist of recognized credentials. In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and -- small wonder -- haven't had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days).

...

About 400 years ago, the Christian religion "knew" everything. It "knew" the earth was flat, "knew" that there were witches, "knew" that animals could be tried for crimes, "knew" that the Bible was the literal word of God, "knew" the difference between right and wrong, "knew" that the difference between man and beast was that only men have "souls", "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light -- or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our "universe"; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion "knows" can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is. -JBR

[Perunovsin]

Very good summarization. I’m on my phone so I can’t expand too much into depth but another perception of mine is like the “ignorance is bliss” motto. “Eve picked the forbidden fruit and ate it. Adam was with her and he ate it, too. Their eyes were opened and their innocence, lost. They ran from God and His presence soon after, and were expelled from the garden, paradise lost.“

I find it interesting how there’s a huge correlation between depression and higher IQ.

Knowledge isn’t what’s good or bad. It’s how we use it. (sins vs morals)

Knowledge is power, and power is always split in 2 equal parts (which wie call good and bad), which are again split into eternity on everything they manifest themselves upon

[Celestia]

Knowledge is power, and power is always split in 2 equal parts (which wie call good and bad), which are again split into eternity on everything they manifest themselves upon

What I find interesting is how over time “good” and “bad” can change. For example the majority of the world would consider child marriage sickening and evil, however a thousand years ago, it was the norm. What is good and what is evil is such a loose term and will never be set in stone.

[Perunovsin]

What I find interesting is how over time “good” and “bad” can change. For example the majority of the world would consider child marriage sickening and evil, however a thousand years ago, it was the norm. What is good and what is evil is such a loose term and will never be set in stone.

Exactly, it just keeps rolling into eternity, if you cant find at least a possibility of good in something bad, you lack creativity, as there is an infinite number of possibilities in eternity of space and time...and understanding this can also be a powerful two-edged sword

[bvnny]

Humans are clearly inferior and highly flawed. For instance, Homo erectus, ‘Upright Man’, survived for close to 2 million years, making them the most durable human or human-like species ever. This record is not very likely to be broken even by our own species : homo-sapiens. It is very doubtful whether Homo sapiens will still be around a thousand years from now, so 2 million years is really out of our league.

Homo-Sapiens are so inferior and flawed that we will be likely exterminated within 1,000 years by a super human race of the genus homo made superior through biological engineering, cyborg engineering (cyborgs are beings that combine organic with non-organic parts) or the engineering of inorganic life etc..

You're basically pointing out that our species is flawed, not the world as a whole, your quote literally disproves everything you just said, since it talks about how religious people believe humans are a "special creation from God", and then you do the same thing by over-focusing on the flaws of humans in an anthropocentric analysis of the world

But, even "playing your game" and analyzing the world purely from the perspective of us, humans, and our own problems, what you said still doesn't make much sense, like... you can't prove that surviving for more time makes an animal species "superior" in a way, if we go through that logic humans are not even close to being the most superior animal species on Earth, I could say that having more power of interference into the natural world is what makes an animal species "superior", and going through that logic I would come to the realization that the human species is superior, since we have entered the anthropocene epoch of the world.

Imaginary numbers aren't a theory genius and they can be proven to exist within the framework of pure mathematics -- the theorem (not theory) can be proved from fundamental axioms. That it is useful for engineering of electronics etc.. is just a coincidence.

Religion is another framework a primitive outdated one :

Science is different from most religions in the way it makes 'converts', and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (b) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or (c) they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.

...

Scientific theories are ones which are supposedly objectively-verifiable by any person of sufficient skill -- a fact reflected in the custom that a theory is not accepted as scientifically correct or useful unless it has been judged publishable in a scientific journal by the author's scientific peers, and experimentally verified by another scientist of recognized credentials. In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and -- small wonder -- haven't had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days).

A theorem is a part of a theory lol:

theorem noun
the·​o·​rem | \ ˈthē-ə-rəm , ˈthir-əm \
Definition of theorem
1: a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions
2: an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION

Aside from you poking fun of me, Math's fundamental axioms are still axioms, which means they're just accepted as they are, there's no proof for them, since any possible proof for an axiom would fall into the Münchhausen Trillema (or Agrippa's five modes, for the phyrrhonist skeptics like me).

Now talking about the other thing that you said, the reasons as to why people follow a certain religion: Most people follow religion because of tradition, they grew in a religious background so it's quite reasonable to think they would continue being religious later in life... that's not """brainwashing""" as you just said, if that was the case then having a modernist mindset would make someone """brainwashed""", just like how must people would've been """brainwashed""" to believe in science, since the majority of people don't actually question why they follow science, they just follow science because "that's what rational human beings do", because "that's how society works", by your logic everyone would have to question the reason they do things all the time, in order to not be brainwashed, that's not how the human psyché works, most people just do things, without actually questioning why they do those things, tradition is not unreasonable since it's ingrained in us, humans are naturally more drawn into conformity and adherence to social norms.

Pointing out the reasons as to why most people follow a certain religion is more of a psychological statement than a theological one, that has nothing to do with the validity of a certain religion and the question as to the truth behind it, if it's all made up or not.

Religion is also verifiable within it's framework, like, there are main religious texts like the bible, the quran, the veddas, that you can cross analyze with other texts of the same era to try understanding, you can come to a conclusion as to what a certain paragraph from a religious text actually means through religious hermeneutics, study the history of a certain major religion to understand how it's different branches came into existence and what are the fundamental points that differentiate one to another, you're really just diminishing all the study behind religion that serious religious people do to try portraying religion and religious people as comically dumb people, basically for your amusement since then you can see yourself as a "fully-rational human being" that "doesn't follow old religions" that have no basis in "the recent scientific findings about the world we live in".

[JamesBond007]

You're basically pointing out that our species is flawed, not the world as a whole, your quote literally disproves everything you just said, since it talks about how religious people believe humans are a "special creation from God", and then you do the same thing by over-focusing on the flaws of humans in an anthropocentric analysis of the world.

That is some of stretching mental black flip craziness on your part. I said humans, in the strict homo-sapiens sense of the word, are are inferior to homo-erectus in a certain respect and will be inferior to an emerging branch of the genus homo in the future. So, in the strict sense of the word , homo-sapiens, I was not focusing on humans unless you think logically homo-erectus etc.. is just as 'human' as homo-sapiens. Furthermore, we don't know enough about potential alien life or whatnot to meaningfully talk about it. How does that disprove my statement ? I basically said humans are not special at all really even in the 'anthropocentric' genus homo widespread sense of the word as well. You make no sense.

But, even "playing your game" and analyzing the world purely from the perspective of us, humans, and our own problems, what you said still doesn't make much sense, like... you can't prove that surviving for more time makes an animal species "superior" in a way, if we go through that logic humans are not even close to being the most superior animal species on Earth, I could say that having more power of interference into the natural world is what makes an animal species "superior", and going through that logic I would come to the realization that the human species is superior, since we have entered the anthropocene epoch of the world.

Animals are not superior , obviously, since that is why the dinosaurs were likely wiped out since they can't even come close to colonizing other planets while humans might terraform mars concievably etc...

A theorem is a part of a theory lol:

theorem noun
the·​o·​rem | \ ˈthē-ə-rəm , ˈthir-əm \
Definition of theorem
1: a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions
2: an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION

This is where the debate ends since you are too dumb to realize that mathematical theorem is not scientific. Scientific theories are different. In fact only mathematical propositions can be strictly true since they are deductive while scientific theories are inductive. Also, you are too stupid to realize that although an English term can have variable definitions they don't all apply necessarily in the usage of a proposition and term. A mathematical proposition uses specialized international symbols while a scientific theory can use primitive every day human language propositions that is clogged with individual sentiment of the individual and the nation. You clearly think math is a science like physics when math is not a science. A theorem also means a stencil or stencil artwork on velvet so how the heck does 1 & 2 both apply to my usage of the term when I obviously meant it in the sense 1 not 2 ?


So while mathematics is the most true science is still more true than religion, though, but science changes more than math.

Pointing out the reasons as to why most people follow a certain religion is more of a psychological statement than a theological one, that has nothing to do with the validity of a certain religion and the question as to the truth behind it, if it's all made up or not.

No shit but if a religion is not literally true then it is impossible for it to be useful because men have to believe in it for it to be useful but that is impossible when they know it is literally false :facepalm:

psychological propositions make more sense than theological ones. Theological ones are nonsense except possibly in a metaphorical sense but that makes it closer to poetry than math and science.

[Methuselah]

If you believe in God then how do you explain to yourself that the world is so terrible and cold. Why do you think he doesn't show himself?
God is only a theory and a bad one in my opinion - there is no proof, that he exists. Belief does not necessarily have to be anti-scientific, but there is proof for evolution.
Try to change my mind...

There is no scientific explanation for our existence as long as eternally existing multiverse/cyclic models and their mechanisms/laws will be proven right. Or God will be proven right. God is a supernatural force so it get's tricky from a scientific point of view unless he reveals himself somehow mathematically or literally shows up as a person to all of us etc or all other theories will be wrong and there is no explanation for what we have here. Old take on Big Bang cosmology could actually serve theism since you don't have anything before Big Bang and in order to have something natural (laws of physics, matter etc) you need supernatural above in order to make it from nothingness. Later Big Bang served as a tool to argue against God but they still didn't have any rational explanation and random nothingness is not a mechanism of any kind. These days there are all kind of models trying to get to time before Big Bang and inflation but we don't know yet what is out there if there is anything out there (from a scientific point of view).

So God is one explanation for what we have here and while it's not a scientific explanation it really is an explanation. Other explanations (various multiverse models) are experimental science and should be proven right. Just because they are kind of science doesn't mean that they are proper scientific explanation right now. If we accept God as one explanation for the existence of our universe and laws of physics and all evolution what has happened then God reveals himself in all the fine tuning what is going and also actions (from a Christian point of views He reveals himself being graceful and righteous even if the world is cold and dark like you described).

What comes to evolution it is not a proof against God but rather something which proves certain theological interpretations like Old Earth Creationism wrong. In my opinion. Whether we need God for evolution is like asking do we need God for laws of physics, force expanding our universe etc.

Why world is cold is a problem of evil and there are all kind of ideas trying to solve that question. Can there be good without bad or a mission in life without a fight between good and bad. It is a very tricky question to ask God why he didn't create us as beings not capable of feeling pain etc but Christians don't have an answer to this. God just promises to fight bad and that all this is temporary before life without pain (sound like some spiritual world to me, there are different theological takes on this tho) takes place. The question is did God need to create laws of nature so rough in order to have all the balance and human life on planet earth. What's the point of all of this? Is God doing enough. Are we doing enough. There are a lot of sickness but also ways to heal or help pain. A lot of corruption and human right issues and abuse but also law and obedience can take place and bring humans to good things. It's a constant fight, human beings are selfish but also it's a team game and many great things are based on humility, loyalty, love, sacrifice and forgiveness. So it depends on how we look at the whole things.

[bvnny]

That is some of stretching mental black flip craziness on your part. I said humans, in the strict homo-sapiens sense of the word, are are inferior to homo-erectus in a certain respect and will be inferior to an emerging branch of the genus homo in the future. So, in the strict sense of the word , homo-sapiens, I was not focusing on humans unless you think logically homo-erectus etc.. is just as 'human' as homo-sapiens. Furthermore, we don't know enough about potential alien life or whatnot to meaningfully talk about it. How does that disprove my statement ? I basically said humans are not special at all really even in the 'anthropocentric' genus homo widespread sense of the word as well. You make no sense.



Animals are not superior , obviously, since that is why the dinosaurs were likely wiped out since they can't even come close to colonizing other planets while humans might terraform mars concievably etc...

"Homo" is literally man in latin, when you talked about human beings, I presupposed you were treating homo erectus as human as we are in a way... I didn't argue for us being "superior" in any way, since I don't believe in that, like, even if you're religious there's no need for you to believe that humans are superior to other potential living beings that might exist out there (the Bible is meant to be the word of God for mankind, like, there's not a single passage of the bible that excludes the possibility of there being other rational beings out there, that could have the same importance that we hold in the eyes of God, or even more importance). My whole point was that you quoted someone saying the idea of us being special is stupid while at the same time only focusing your analysis on homo sapies and homo erectus, basically.

This is where the debate ends since you are too dumb to realize that mathematical theorem is not scientific. Scientific theories are different. In fact only mathematical propositions can be strictly true since they are deductive while scientific theories are inductive. Also, you are too stupid to realize that although an English term can have variable definitions they don't all apply necessarily in the usage of a proposition and term. A mathematical proposition uses specialized international symbols while a scientific theory can use primitive every day human language propositions that is clogged with individual sentiment of the individual and the nation. You clearly think math is a science like physics when math is not a science. A theorem also means a stencil or stencil artwork on velvet so how the heck does 1 & 2 both apply to my usage of the term when I obviously meant it in the sense 1 not 2 ?


So while mathematics is the most true science is still more true than religion, though, but science changes more than math.

Bro, you literally said in the same reply that math is not a science and the "most true science", gonna take that with a grain of salt and consider that you might be talking about science in a two-fold way, like "empirical science" and science in the ancient greek meaning of the word, like, all fields of knowledge

And math is true only within its boundaries, since, as I just said, its axioms are "self-evident", meaning there is no profound proof behind them, and trying to do that would make you fall into The Five Tropes of Agrippa...

If we were to consider the etmology of the word "theory", imaginary numbers and math as a whole are theories, since it derives from the latin theoria, that means a "mental scheme", a "speculation" in a way, and math is all about mental schemes since its essence is deductive (as you admitted).

No shit but if a religion is not literally true then it is impossible for it to be useful because men have to believe in it for it to be useful but that is impossible when they know it is literally false :facepalm:

psychological propositions make more sense than theological ones. Theological ones are nonsense except possibly in a metaphorical sense but that makes it closer to poetry than math and science.

You're into some weird circular reasoning as to the psychological aspect behind religion ngl, and, if we're talking about the validity of religion, then theology, metaphysics and epistemology have way more importance than psychology