Do you believe in God? - Page 7

[orangewallflower]

Originally Posted by dinahx

If I had a choice to hang out with Dawkins or Jesus, I would pick JC all day! One weird thing is that some people say 'I don't believe in Jesus, or I don't believe in the Bible'. Umm you don't get a choice there. The Bible exists I can hold it right now, you can say its just a story book, but it does exist and it is a best seller, and clearly, JC existed. It may be legit to not believe He was Divine, there is an argument there. But to say you don't believe in Him period? Well do people go around saying they don't believe in the (partially mythologized) Socrates or Ben Franklin?

As would I. While I do not believe that Christ was divine, I believe that he was such a great man that his followers simply couldn't cope without him. So they deified him. I would love to meet him and anyone who has done something similar: the Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious. This would be far more interesting than a socially challenged evolutionary biologist. I like listening to Dawkins talk about evolution. On religion, he misses the mark because he does not see the positive role that it plays in so many people's lives. Yet I do agree with him that it can also be a profoundly negative thing too as with the subjugation of women in some cultures (just to name an example)

[mntnmom]

I don't believe in the literal, involved omnipotent god I was raised with. Too many things just don't add up to me. I don't believe in the supernatural. But I do believe in there are things our finite minds will never understand. I CHOOSE to believe in some form of "prime mover" or "greater power", because I've seen many things that point to a larger spiritual nature behind what we see.
So I've settled on being a "pantheist". I believe everything *is* god, and vice versa. I try to practice seasonal based pagan traditions with my kids. It helps me celebrate the beauty of the world's cycles. It doesn't have to be caused by anyone to be amazing.
On the whole Jesus thing: personally, I believe he was an inspired teacher, and probably really existed. But there is nothing beyond the Bible to say he did. There are hundreds of writings by both Socrates and Ben Franklin, and paintings and busts made at the time they lived. I might question that they did "X", or the validity of certain comments, but questioning their existence is a little different than questioning the existence of Jesus. If you believe the Bible is just a book of stories, there is NO evidence he ever lived.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

It happens because intrinsic value is value that comes from what something is, not how it's created.

Something that, through it's very being, provides benefit in someway has a higher intrinsic value then something that doesn't. Intrinsic value doesn't exist seperate from what it is part of and what it is part of cannot exist without intrinsic value.

Note: Value does not have to equal a positive amount, value is simply the overall worth of something which can be negative.

But who gets to decide what the intrinsic value of something is?

If everything in the universe is just randomly here due to chance occurrence, then I would think that the 'intrinsic' value of everything is completely subjective. I can decide that the intrinsic value of anything from a rock to a person is whatever I want it to be. Groups of people can come to an agreement on what they consider to be the intrinsic value of things (or people or animals or whatever), but that's still just a subjective opinion and can change.

On the other hand, if everything in the universe is created by an intelligent higher power, then the Creator has made each part of Its creation with the intrinsic value It has decided upon. That value is objective because it was intentionally put there by the Creator during its creation and can never change.

So how do objects in a completely random universe get their objective intrinsic value? And if that value is subjective, then how is it intrinsic?

[ThirdEyeMom]

Originally Posted by yokosmile

There's no proof that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.

OP isn't looking for a changing belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The philosophic argument that God does or does not exist is milleniums old and won't be resolved resolved today. My post was in response to OP's question to express the personal conviction I hold versus the opinions of those in this thread who express the desire for "proof" of God's existence. In defense of my position, I offer this quote: "The ontological argument attempts to prove God’s existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone. Whether such a proof is possible even in principle is questioned by Hume."

The ontological argument is only one position in which great minds have addressed the idea and existence of God. There are some common philosophical arguments for theism: Pascal’s Wager, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument (including the first cause argument), The Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design), The Moral Argument, and The Argument from Religious Experience. These philosophic theistic views are found at http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/. The Philosophy of Religion site is a nice informative site for questioning minds.

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

How does this work, exactly? How do you know the intrinsic value of anything?

I thought the alternative to an intelligent higher power creating the universe was a random, chaotic, indifferent, natural universe....so wouldn't the intrinsic value of things made from the random events of a random universe be, in fact, random?

Actually I think this is a very limiting view of things. Simply because we don't have "the" answer it doesn't mean that the answer doesn't exist. Frankly, I've found that the big things in nature tend to follow a logical sequence if you step back, one that's irrelevant to the higher power discussion.

Originally Posted by MusicianDad

No, I am saying that the value that something has is there because that something is there. Not that the value is always equal. And not because some higher power randomly decided to give it value, it's value is part of what it is, in other words the value is intrinsic.

This. For example, as we're all on a parenting forum I think we can probably agree that we believe that each child has value. That value doesn't come from God, it doesn't come from what society thinks of that child, but simply because the child *is*. If a child is in an abusive home where her parents think she is worthless and without value, that does not change the intrinsic value of that child outside that venue.

~~~~~
This thread has really made me do a lot of thinking and sorting things out. I converted to Paganism about a year ago, and unlike the Christianity I was raised with, there isn't a set of pre-written instructions, so it's been a year heavy in introspection of just what I do believe in - and what I do not. I definitely don't believe in the Christian idea of God. Too much of that doesn't add up, doesn't make sense, and seems contradictory. I don't believe that a kind and loving God would set people up the way the god in that religion seems to.

I personally hate the phrase "divine power". It just sounds goofy to me. However, I guess that's the best phrase out there right now. I don't believe that One God created each individual creature and item on every world in every planet in every universe. I do think that there is some strong energy force behind it, and that the dieties I worship act as a way to more closely interact with that. I do believe that evil as well as good exists, but I don't believe that everything we can't explain that is contradictory to a set religion is the work of "Satan". I believe that everything works in balance, and most things aren't really defined as good or bad, but rather they just are. So, do I believe in god? Actually I believe in several, but more as another level of the cosmic force.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by SunshineJ

This. For example, as we're all on a parenting forum I think we can probably agree that we believe that each child has value. That value doesn't come from God, it doesn't come from what society thinks of that child, but simply because the child *is*. If a child is in an abusive home where her parents think she is worthless and without value, that does not change the intrinsic value of that child outside that venue.

I actually do think that the value of each child comes from God, and that is precisely why a child has the same intrinsic value no matter what an individual may think about the value of said child.

I'm going to ask this again, in a universe that was not created by an intelligent higher power, who gets to decide what the intrinsic value is of anything is? How do you know what it is?

[Adele_Mommy]

This post is in response to a couple sub-discussions from earlier in the thread, but I'm not going to go back and find posts to quote.

1. I think the phrase "old guy with a beard' is used as kind of a code phrase to refer to a personal god. i.e. a god that "loves" us and has preferences, that cares how we behave and makes rules. A god that is omnipotent but is really just a kind of super-human that "thinks" and "wants". The characteristics of the god(s) of the three Abrahamic religions are very different, but they are all personal gods and when you compare them to religions that do not posit a personal god or gods the differences are relatively insignificant as opposed to the difference between a personal god and say a "creative force" or "divine energy that suffuses all things".

Also, the three Abrahamic religions share some prophets and mythology. They share an "origin" so to speak. And since all three religions maintain that god is unchanging, and since the characteristics attributed to god by the three different religions are different, believers of those religions either have to conclude that the three religions believe in different gods or they believe in the same god but the other two religions are totally wrong about the nature of God. However, people looking at the three religions from outside can arguably use a short hand of saying they believe in a "same god" - they just have different ideas about the nature of that god.

2. Some Christians like to maintain that they are monotheists with "three-in-one" mystical-speak, and that is certainly their option, but it is easy to see why Muslims could say they are not really montheists - two (or three) separate divinities - Jesus and God. The early Jews were not monotheists in the sense that they believed only one god existed. They believed the gods of other cultures existed, these gods were simply considered inferior to their own god. The god of the Hebrews was the only god they were supposed to worship. The commandment to "have no other gods before me" is often interpreted today as meaning not to put money or government or things like that before God, but it was actually a quite literal commandment to worship only one god - the god of the Hebrews. The gods of other peoples were considered to exist, but to be separate from the one god worshipped by the Hebrews and to be far inferior in power, importance, and pretty much everything to the god of the Hebrews. The early Hebrews thought of themselves as a chosen people, but chosen by one particular god. Other peoples may be chosen by other gods. By the time of the Muslims both the Jews and and the Muslims were truly monotheistic - believing in the existence of only one universal God - but while this has always been true of the Muslims (or at least I think they maintain that it is) - all you have to do is read the Old Testament to see that it was not always true of the Jews.

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I actually do think that the value of each child comes from God, and that is precisely why a child has the same intrinsic value no matter what an individual may think about the value of said child.

I'm going to ask this again, in a universe that was not created by an intelligent higher power, who gets to decide what the intrinsic value is of anything is? How do you know what it is?

Whose "intelligent higher power" gets to decide the intrinsic value of anything?

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by EFmom

Whose "intelligent higher power" gets to decide the intrinsic value of anything?

That's a different discussion. And it doesn't answer my question.

[pumpkin]

I don't believe in a deity because I don't believe in worship. I am willing to believe that in the vast universe there may be a species that is much more evolved then we are. They might even seem god-like. There would be no reason for me to consider myself below them, they are simply further along.

If there is someone out there that decides my fate based upon whether or not I performed the right rituals or worshiped properly then its time to overthrow the regime. A being that expects that kind of thing does not deserve respect or cooperation.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I actually do think that the value of each child comes from God, and that is precisely why a child has the same intrinsic value no matter what an individual may think about the value of said child.

I'm going to ask this again, in a universe that was not created by an intelligent higher power, who gets to decide what the intrinsic value is of anything is? How do you know what it is?

In a universe that was created by an intelligent higher power, who gets to decide what the intrinsic value of anything is? The "higher power"? Fine - but what does that actually mean, in real life terms?

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by dinahx

I have come full circle on the creation issue, especially on the subject of motive & PR. I feel like it is the side of Science that has the most to gain, via patent law, of denying the existence of God. Growing up, I felt like the only correct position was pro Darwin, anti-fanatical. But it seems that there is a clear motive in science for denying a creator or giving a 'jury's out'. They gain moral relativism, like 'who's's to say it is wrong to clone mice for eyelash research?' or 'who's's to say we can't own a seed or say, contaminate the whole world's corn with our patented genome?'

Seriously? I've heard more religious justifications for this kind of thing than secular ones...arguments that God gave us "dominion" over the rest of the earth and that we have a divine right to do whatever we want with the rest of the earth.

I believe any honest scientist would say that we simply don't know enough about the long-term ramifications to mess around with cloning and genetic modifications of our food supply.

[EFmom]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

That's a different discussion. And it doesn't answer my question.

Well, since I've never seen a shred of evidence for anybody's "intelligent higher power," it's a moot question.

The value of anything is in the eye of the beholder, whether that thing is a dollar or a baby.

Many religious folk think the intrinsic value of a person is relative as well, although not many would admit it. Take, for example, all the Christians who are opposed to abortion, but are perfectly OK with capital punishment.

[carmel23]

I'd just like to interject a few points. First of all, it is possible to understand evolution and believe in God. In fact, the Catholic Church just had a big conference on evolution--and the intelligent design folks were pissed off because they weren't invited.

Faith begins where reason ends. We don't need faith to understand what we can apply reason to--i.e. the domains of science.

But even the big bang theory doesn't explain where the mass of "stuff," the singularity, comes from. It starts with SOMETHING (even if this something doesn't resemble what we now understand as a 'thing'. So there is something that exists-- where did that come from? Science cannot explain that. That is a matter of faith, then, because it is beyond reason.

It doesn't explain WHY there is something, and not Nothing.

And the ontological argument does begin with our experience of reality-- it is based on our experience of the world. There are whole branches of philosophy that reject Kant and Hume, because our experience of the world is true--our ideas do correspond to reality. That is why we can put a rocket on the moon--because our ideas of physics correspond to reality. Yes, there is a lot that is beyond our perception and we don't necessarily perceive everything. But we know enough to operate in the world, and we can understand a lot of the universe that we can't empirically know-- but mathematics and logical thinking still prove to correspond to reality, hence our ability to place objects on mars, etc.

We have the cosmological argument, which predates Christianity and goes at least back to Aristotle, who wasn't a Theist.

[junie]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

But who gets to decide what the intrinsic value of something is?

No one. The value of any particular person or thing boils down to their potential, and that doesn't change even if they're not utilizing that potential or that potential isn't being appreciated.

For example, my husband enjoys drawing. I would say he has intrinsic value as an artist because he possesses the potential to draw well. He doesn't necessarily utilize that potential to create great works of art, so practically and subjectively he's not always of much value as an artist, but the potential still exists. How did his skill develop? A combination of genetics and using his talent over the years. No higher being (that we know of - I'm stating it like this to show that no higher being is necessary for his intrinsic value).

Now of course you could argue that it's still subjective since it requires someone else to appreciate his skill in order to be of any value, but whether or not his skill is appreciated doesn't change the level of skill he possesses. What he has to offer, or his value, remains the same. It's intrinsic. Subjectively, he is more or less valuable depending on who is appreciating his work, how much work he produces etc. Objectively, he will always only be able to produce a certain quality of work, so his value will always boil down to those skills at that level, and only that level. And what that level is does not require a belief in a higher power to explain it.

[bluebirdiemama]

Originally Posted by EFmom

Many religious folk think the intrinsic value of a person is relative as well, although not many would admit it. Take, for example, all the Christians who are opposed to abortion, but are perfectly OK with capital punishment.

I really like the point made earlier, about science being a faith, that you just have faith that the answers are there, and even if you don't know them right now, they are there to discover.
It's hard to say if I was a Christian when I believed in capital punishment, I was in transition, but now, I am Christian and against capital punishment.
As someone who believes in God, I have faith that if I don't know something right now, the truth exists, and since truth is never changing, it will be the same when I am ready to embrace it.

I think it's less of "not admitting it" and more of, "we're not perfect. We all have a hundred plus things to learn".

[bluebirdiemama]

Originally Posted by carmel23

I'd just like to interject a few points. First of all, it is possible to understand evolution and believe in God. In fact, the Catholic Church just had a big conference on evolution--and the intelligent design folks were pissed off because they weren't invited.

Faith begins where reason ends. We don't need faith to understand what we can apply reason to--i.e. the domains of science.

But even the big bang theory doesn't explain where the mass of "stuff," the singularity, comes from. It starts with SOMETHING (even if this something doesn't resemble what we now understand as a 'thing'. So there is something that exists-- where did that come from? Science cannot explain that. That is a matter of faith, then, because it is beyond reason.

It doesn't explain WHY there is something, and not Nothing.

.............

We have the cosmological argument, which predates Christianity and goes at least back to Aristotle, who wasn't a Theist.

You make some good, interesting points

I think faith and science can co-exist nicely, as long as it's not "marketable faith" and/or "marketable science".
Obviously there is some degree of evolution, just, what is that degree? I don't think it explains the beggining of life. And Im wondering.... what the point is of the conference you mentioned? Have Catholics decided they don't believe in Genesis anymore? Or do they simply not wanting the "intelligent designers" making a stink about degrees of evolution?
If there are people called "intelligent designers" who think there is no evolution of species at all... that's new to me.

[LeilaM]

Originally Posted by bluebirdiemama

I think that if you looked into it you would find science, in fact, doesn't provide all the answers.

I did not say that science has already provided all the answers. I said that science *can* provide the answers. Science isn't finished. It's a process.

Our scientific understanding of the world has grown vastly over the past 100 years alone. I can't even imagine how much more it will have explained in another 100 years. Given enough time, it has the potential to explain virtually everything in a real, factual way.

[Thalia the Muse]

Going from "not life" to "life" isn't really an evolution question -- evolution just deals with changes over time in populations of living organisms, so by definition it can't deal with "before life."

Where life originally came from a fascinating question, and one where I think there are lots of interesting theories but no "aha, this is definitely it" answer at the moment.

I think there are questions where it's possible we may never be able to gather enough data to derive a scientific answer (where did matter come from? What was going on before the Big Bang? Is there life elsewhere in the universe and how common is it?) -- and there are others that science can't answer because they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Does life have meaning? Is there intrinsic value or some kind of inherent ethical standard? What is the meaning of "good" and what constitutes a good life? These are really, really important questions, but they aren't scientific ones and can't be approached scientifically.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

I actually do think that the value of each child comes from God, and that is precisely why a child has the same intrinsic value no matter what an individual may think about the value of said child.

I'm going to ask this again, in a universe that was not created by an intelligent higher power, who gets to decide what the intrinsic value is of anything is? How do you know what it is?

No one and nothing decides the intrinsic value of anything. The intrinsic value of something is not by definition something that can be assigned by an out side person or being. It comes from within. Intrinsic value belongs to something by it's very nature.