All Things Religion Thread

Gday Brutus, I understand the history, again, I just don’t get the teaching that to be saved in a spiritual sense you must only believe in the christian god that’s all. Cheers.

Hi Guy.....not sure you know but Islam and Christians worship the same God...Christianity through Jesus Christ , Islam thru Mohamed........Islam believes Jesus was not the son of God ( as do the Jews) but was a Prophet.....Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God......

So as always there are different sects/cults...each one follows their version ......I am still studying and learning the History ......and reading and listening to a lot smarter/intelligent / academics people than anyone I know......so my data base for a lot of what I say here is pretty well researched , as I love history.....as it's always being retweaked as more info becomes available....

10,000 years of stories is exactly right. Anecdotal . Chinese whispers. No qualitative data been presented and or proven. Are they Lies? Your god damn right they are.

Yes christian, jewish and islam traditions share much as do many of the eastern traditions; in fact they all have more in common than what is different. Cheers

Ten thousand years.
My quandry. What of the other humans?
Did Neanderthals have eternal souls? Were they not worth saving?
What about Denisova man or Homo erectus who lived for 2 million years?
Why is God only saving the homo sapiens?
And why not the other animals?
It makes no sense to me that it is all and only about us and our souls.

Bonza....as you haven't read the old testament , and the history BC.....what are you basing your opinion on?

Adam12, Where does it say that salvation is limited to homo sapiens?

I recently came across a pretty well put together argument that the first mating couple of homo heidelbergensis could be considered to be "Adam & Eve" (which looked at minimal requirements for human personhood next to a genre-analysis of the book of genesis - the claim was the book is best understood as "mytho-historical" (ie using mythological language to record core facts.) As I understand it, heidelberg man was considered to be the earliest human "person"; if someone argued that even earlier man should be considered such, so be it!). Putting that next concepts of "salvation by christ alone, appropriated by responding to god however he has revealed himself in given time & place"*, you get a very, very broad field of persons to whom salvation is/was accessible.

(*biblically based on the idea that certain old-testament figures who lived millenia before Jesus walked the earth are considered by scriptural authors to have been saved based on their response to how god revealed himself in their time & place; no great leap to extend that concept further).

Hey Brutus actually I read a fair bit of it. I have memories of really digging it as a pre teen kid. But to be fair I’d be lying if I said I remembered much. I was babtised a catholic. We r the chosen ones btw not you fancy pants born agains. Nevertheless it’s irrelevant. My opinion is based on scientific laws theories and methods that lead to them. I haven’t seen anything in any reputable journal or publication that has ever claimed there is evidence for the existence of god. If there was we all here wouldn’t be having this discussion. You are asking us to have faith and believe.

For ye of little faith- please watch- gotta believe in something I suppose-

Bonza, is your position that the only valid knowledge is that which is scientifically (empirically?) underpinned?

Yup

I can feel a trap

No trap, just wanted to check if I understood where you were coming from.
Slightly cheeky question: what's the empirical basis for believing that only knowledge that has an empirical underpinning is valid?

The God of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, who is also the God of the Jews the early Arabs and the Christians, is not the god of Mohammad.....In his modern day book the koran , he writes that allah has no son nor any equal.
We know that the one true God who cant be seen due to Him being a spirit and really big, had a son in the beginning we now call Jesus so that we can see Him and what He is like. A scaled down version of Himself if you like and co- equal in every way.
"I and my Father are one" John 10:30.... and also....."Before Abraham was...I AM"...Jesus..John 8:58.

If you look around, the main case for belief is not a sound framework of logic or evidence (although some search high and low for this to limited result) but simply that:
- someone else believes, so should you.
- if someone did not believe and changed their mind - even better (e.g. Paul and Charles Wesley),
- if a large group believes - even better again
- if someone famous believes, best of all.

So Brutus, search all you want, however mostly you will come back to a single thread of logic - he / she believed, therefore so must you.

The trouble it that this is that it may lead people to some pretty weird places as the dominoes of conversion come their way. And if you start talking logic you might not have many fellow believers joining in.

Pops you r probably right - there may be areas of knowledge that do not require empirical confirmation. I just can’t think of any. I’m not claiming the scientific method is an absolute truth.
I’m saying it has discovered a more useful understanding of nature that is solid and reliable than any other system of inquiry.

Bonza, 100% agree that it's the best thing we've come up with as far as inquiry into the natural world goes (not the only tool though... not all of historical study would be considered scientific etc); but it does have it's limits - it doesn't help us look at more abstract areas (eg some areas of pure mathematics), metaphysics, etc. You could say science is really good for telling us what/where/when/how, but not so much why...

Perhaps. But if you have a series of studies that confirm a recurring pattern then you can have somewhat confidence as to what the why is. As a scientist however you would preface that statement with a “may”. But yeah there is a hell of a lot we don’t know. Isnt that wonderful.

And at the very least it’s an excellent method for disproving theories. Which brings us back to gods existence.

Nah, science doesn't disprove the existence of god any more than it disproves the existence of a platonic realm that holds the ultimate forms of abstract objects (numbers etc) - not something I hold to, but a reasonably common position. It's simply neutral on the issue.
It does provide evidence against some claims made by theists, but the existence of god does not stand or fall with those claims. There's no incompatibility between god and science.

"The God of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, "

Ishmael is Rodney Rudes uncle isn't he?

I’d say it’s disproven every single claim that has been made by theists that can be measured and observed.
The laws and principles of science that we observe and experience within our universe tell us nothing about anything we might speculate to exist outside or beyond our universe boundaries which is where your god exists.

Can’t see how that’s compatible. If it can’t be measured or observed it’s a meaningless theory.

The laws and principles of science are... someone else's science....we are only observing what someone else has built....slowly working it out.. slowly unravelling the complexity.......but who built it?

"I’d say it’s disproven every single claim that has been made by theists that can be measured and observed."
Patently untrue. One example: the world (universe, cosmos, however you want to put it) began to exist.

Frog...got one for ya......is there any scientific proof or a formula that proves love doesnt or does exist?

Can you please elaborate pops

bonza, theists maintain that the world began to exist (one of the premises in the argument that god created the world - for the world to have been created, it must have begun to exist). Scientific evidence suggests that the world began to exist with the big bang. So in this claim at least (that the world began to exist), the theist is supported by science. So no, science has not disproven "every single claim made by theists that can be measured and observed".

Actually pops most theists were dragged kicking and screaming in acceptance to Big Bang theory. We referred to them then as creationists - actively rejected the Big Bang theory. The smarter theists realised the overwhelming proof presented by science in evolutionary theory and thus rebranded themselves as ID adherents. Big Bang wasn’t a theory that the theists put forward at all. And science certainly doesn’t support the pseudoscience version IDs use to corrupt Big Bang theory.

"Big Bang wasn’t a theory that the theists put forward at all" errr Georges Lemaitre, who first put forward the big bang theory, was a Roman Catholic priest, as well being a physicist... seems a reasonable bet that he was a theist (though he did not arrive at the argument via theological argument but by analysis of general relativity, backed up by Hubble' redshift observations).

As for acceptance of the theory, it took a few decades (from Lemaitre's articulation in the 20s to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 60s) for the big bang to completely overcome the steady state model as the predominately accepted model (ironically, at least early on a prominent objection by those who held to the steady state model was that Lemaitre was importing religious concepts to arrive at the big bang interpretation)...

Can you elaborate on the "pseudoscience version IDs use to corrupt Big Bang theory"?

Nothing to add but very good chat.
Appreciate the tone and the knowledge put forwards.

Thanks FR. I worry sometimes that I clog the front page with boring stuff when I geek out in these discussions... glad someone's interested!

Brutus,
Ahh, but an agnostic sceptic who has accepted that the search for "the answers" is fruitless has to prove nothing except maybe that doubt and uncertainty has merit.

You are the one looking for proof.

Optimist just believes and seeks converts.

pops in the western world at least almost everyone was a christian - scientist or not ,until very recently…mendel, newton, volta, galileo

it seems like you agree at least Lemaitre used the scientific method to propose his theory and in turn although may have taken decades was proven right through ….the scientific method . so if by compatibility you mean can you believe in god and also apply scientific methodology in your field of study?. well of course you can. but thats where it ends. you can’t apply science to religion or vice versa because the 2 are incompatible.

one relies on observation, patterns , regularity and measurability. the other deals purely in belief.

there are several areas of ID that i would claim as pseudoscience. in short ID’s claim that a god will intervene in natural processes (evolution) once in a while, providing apparent "miracles" that are not explainable by natural laws.

that fundamentally is pseudoscience.

“ not sure you know but Islam and Christians worship the same God...Christianity through Jesus Christ , Islam thru Mohamed........Islam believes Jesus was not the son of God ( as do the Jews) but was a Prophet.....Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God......”

In relation to the “God” mentioned in the above quote and please excuse my ignorance regarding this but who or what created this God?

My goodness rabbits that’s a farking good question... If anyone here or anywhere can even begin to answer that then surely we’d have to go with the evidence and the facts, of course ;)
First up... nobody knows.
-But... It’s possible some clever old Jewish mind stumbled upon the power of belief, or just maybe the power of addiction to belief ;)
And this could definitely work if you’ve been a part of ‘unchosen’ people for a while (as in being slaves) and would like a turn at being the ‘master’ and, more importantly, the ‘chosen’ people. This method could in turn create ‘freedom’ as well as generating immense power and mystery to further maintain and enhance not only an individual’s ability to survive but also a group’s ability to enforce and control their means of survival ;)
Then, with further assistance and encouragement, invent the just as powerful yet oh so subtle art of divine singular communication with a supreme higher force as a representation of duty or service (often translated as ‘faith’).
Then further create wonderful stories, analogies, guidelines, moral lessons and examples of relatable punishments or consequences and contrast that with ideals of basic reward for effort through renunciation of mostly instinctual animalistic human desires and traits..... annnnnddddd..... don’t forget to throw in the promise of eternal salvation as the perceived ‘ultimate’ goal - and there you have an immensely effective superiority complex and insurance deal created as a vantage point in which the idea of ‘god’ can be shared, enforced, repackaged, sold, resold, modified, manipulated and further indirectly diluted to suit any control mechanism desired ;)
Since there is also no evidence of trademark, this ideology / belief / fantasy can go through reincarnations (the Abrahamic faiths relative to this very modern idea of ‘god’ ) and hence have differences that enable killing, rape and torture as well as common and shared aspects that bring peace, kindness and forgiveness. And that is both terrifying and wonderful! A microcosm and mirror of the human ‘being’ or just a methodology to transcend this ?
But it couldn’t be that easy ...
Surely not ;);)

Frog....not looking for proof......just researching History , as it's so damn interesting , and I pass on some of the History.......History is also changing as we unearth new evidence , which sometimes confirms history , and or adds to it........

archealogical programs/ books it's like going on an adventure!

Rabbits, "who or what created this God"; the textbook answer would be that God is past-eternal (and therefore uncreated).

"who or what created this God"; the textbook answer would be that God is past-eternal (and therefore uncreated).

Thanks Pops. Certainly would take some serious levels of faith to firmly believe such a thing but I for one am happy to keep an open mind regarding the subject matter of God(s).

Cheers for the laugh Jelly :-)

No problem Rabbits.
Faith aside, the convenient thing about postulating a past-eternal being as the creator of the universe is that it rescues us from the problem of an "actual-infinite*" regress of past causes. (everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist, what was it's cause? what was it's cause's cause, and so on)

*(see the concept of "aleph-0" in set theory; the "actual-infinite" is a different concept to the potential-infinite denoted by the sideways figure 8 symbol). Also note that having an actual-infinite sequence of causes is problematic because it is not possible to construct a set with actual-infinite members by sequentially adding members (there's always a bigger finite number!)

Cheers Pops. Well explained & plenty to consider that's for sure :-)

if god is past eternal - he is infinite. so it follows that our universe/s can also be infinite.
and if god didn't need a creator - then neither does our universe/s

Nah, "past-eternal" could mean infinite in time, or it could mean existing outside of time.

Plus, the current low-entropy state of the universe is another strong piece of evidence that it has existed for a finite period of time (otherwise, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be broken).

this is way over my head - its beyond big bang so the scientific models break down..
i don't get why you can't apply the same logic that applies to your god as to the multiverse? do we know what the concept of time is before big bang? I'm not sure that's been determined has it? only postulated?

.. but again why don't these concepts apply to your god?

...and the laws within our universe don't apply beyond them - we can only speculate. there is no proof.. yet..

bonza, per the standard model, spacetime itself begins with the big bang. The concept of "before" the big bang is incoherent - there is not time, there is no before. There is nothing (and no, there isn't some thing called "nothing", there is no physical thing).
Various other models (bubble universes, infinite "bouncing" expansion/contraction models) etc have been postulated to try to avoid such a beginning, but all run into the 2nd law of thermodynamics problem.

The difference between the universe and God? one is a natural (physical) thing on which the laws of physics act, the other is not a natural (physical) thing but rather a mind.

the other is a supernatural thing in other words.. that has never been observed or measured. if the multiverse or whatever it is.. was created.. that still doesn't demonstrate that a mind created it. that assertion comes from belief.

anyways pops. been good chatting - you are well versed on this stuff. you prompted me to look into more of Craig's arguments and KCA theory as well as Carroll and co rebukes. cosmology is way above my knowledge and ability to discuss intelligently. i don't agree with Craig's arguments but i can't coherently explain why.

all the best mate.

thanks Bonza, been good chatting - always good to be challenged and made to think.