Religion...

[ignatius]

You do speak truth that a person shouldn't hedge-his-bet by believing just enough so that you get in, if it happens to be true.   And no harm if untrue  (Pascal's Wager)

Ugh, Pascal's Wager is so weak.  Zeus and Apollo are going to torture you if you don't worship them.  May as well since you have nothing to lose.  Better start making sacrifices for the sun gods of the Incas or you will be sorry in the afterlife.  You have nothing to lose so you may as well accept it.  Pascal's logic is pretty weak when it comes to theism.  Now Aquinas was awesome with logic, but ultimately was applying it to superstition in the end.  I could go on and on about Aquinas if anyone is familiar with his methods. 

I'm with LtoKCMO... having faith in religions or science serves no purpose.  Reasoning through what I'd accept 'as likely' has more more substance to me than accepting things as 'true' based on faith (the word of another).

[phuqueue]

And some concepts that are even scientific:  evolution/molecular biology/nuclear physics.   We have an idea they exist, and we believe them based on our limited brains.  But they're not provable either.

Need more proof?

(note to mods: image is public domain)

[ignatius]

^Amusing.  As bizarre as quantum physics is, our understanding of it allows us to make the atomic bomb as well as transistors.  You would not be typing on this message board without pure science.  But I don't put faith in science, just accept some of the results, especially those that can be practically applied.

[Maitre D]

Ugh, Pascal's Wager is so weak.  Zeus and Apollo are going to torture you if you don't worship them.  May as well since you have nothing to lose.  Better start making sacrifices for the sun gods of the Incas or you will be sorry in the afterlife.  You have nothing to lose so you may as well accept it.  Pascal's logic is pretty weak when it comes to theism. 

I know, that's what I said.

I'm with LtoKCMO... having faith in religions or science serves no purpose.  Reasoning through what I'd accept 'as likely' has more more substance to me than accepting things as 'true' based on faith (the word of another).

What's more likely:  the world was created or the world was random?    That's the million dollar question.

[Jess]

According to scripture, Jesus himself doubted.  Guess it's okay for any of us to. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

and much of the philosophy and moral code attributed to God are shared among many religions and often almost seem self-evident anyway (although maybe it's not, since so many people, Christian and non-Christian alike, can't seem to understand even the most basic components of Jesus's message about how to treat other people; still, I'd like to believe that "treat others as you'd like to be treated" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" would seem obvious even if there were no Bible, but I suppose I can't completely downplay religion's role here).  God just seems superfluous to me, an extra answer to questions that are already being addressed.

Just another exercise in belief, faith , or whatever.

Yes, there are many similarities between the different religions of this world.  Could not the same God be behind all of them and He expressed his existence to the many people of the world in different ways?  Ways their societies could comprehend.

And if there is intelligent life on other planets did Jesus' death also save them?  Or do they have their own religious beliefs?

[aknowledgeableperson]

No not everything is discovered yet in science... However I do not think science will ever discover God.

There was some thought that when we do prove that God exists then the reason for our being in no longer, ie the end of the world as we know it.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I'm talking about direct communication with you as we can communicate.  If the last time your god talked was a couple thousand years ago, it's probably dead.

Oral Roberts.  And a few others.  God talks to them all of the time.

[Jess]

And if there is intelligent life on other planets did Jesus' death also save them?  Or do they have their own religious beliefs?

I guess I've probably always just interpreted "the world" as the entire universe, versus Earth.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But we're not talking about a talking God, we're talking about a communicating God. It doesn't have to be verbal communication. It doesn't even have to be direct communication. It only needs to be communication which appears to be unexplainable by anything other than divinity.

I will take a stretch here.  What about the appearance of the Virgin Mary in Fatima?  And Guadalupe?

[Jess]

Or in a pane of glass on the side of an mirror-windowed office building in Clearwater Beach, Fla?

[aknowledgeableperson]

But they do not have miracles attributed to them.

[ignatius]

What's more likely:  the world was created or the world was random?    That's the million dollar question.

A million dollars doesn't seem like much these days.

I would pose the question differently though.  Where does the source of energy and forces come from?  I don't agree that order means a god creation and natural forces comes from randomness.  Natural forces aren't random.  There is all kinds of structure and order in nature, such as the pattern you get when sprinkling metal particles on a magnet.  Snowflakes are highly symmetrical, formed during the freezing process.  There are explanations for these in natural terms.

I don't think we have nearly enough information to answer the question on the 'original' force and energy of the universe.  I personally don't really buy into the big bang theory that much.  It could be a good possibility, but there's not enough different independent sources that are coming to the same path of explanation for me to accept it.  In comparison to evolution theory, there are so many different methods of explanation independent of each other that generally head down the same path, it's more reasonable to accept as a very likely probability (but could still be wrong, it would not bother me if it's wrong).  If practical application comes from it, I suppose that would give it broader credibility.

The study of the universe so far has been using a tiny amount of observation methods in comparison.  We have direct access to Earth to study what has occurred in Earth's history with all kinds of tools.  In the universe, we don't have much access.  We can mostly only study the luminous parts of the universe - the stars and the objects that reflect light or radiation.  That's probably not even 10% of the universe.  And luminous studies are only a portion of our senses.  We can't interact with it to poke it around and test it.  What we know about the universe is puny in comparison to what we know about Earth.  I suspect there will be radically new views of the universe even in the next 20 years, but still not enough to come up with a cross-referenceable explanation of independent methods that lead to the same explanation of the 'original source'.

But most people have to have the answer no matter what. 

"Bogus explanations often come from those who are insecure of being uncertain."
Copyright (C) 2008 - Iggy

[Maitre D]

And if there is intelligent life on other planets did Jesus' death also save them?  Or do they have their own religious beliefs?

The Bible doesn't address other planets, so it's not something for us to worry about.

In Isaiah, God says he's the only one and that he created all including the lands between the sunrise and sunset.  So he'd control the other planets.  (If he exists)

[mean]

Woah... http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html

[LenexatoKCMO]

So at the end of the day, I'm curious, would you say that we're all agnostics on a sliding scale of 1-100, with MD up near 1, you around 50, and me at 99? Or would you break it down differently?

No - I think there are plenty of people in the world who feel with absolute certainty that they know the truth one way or the other - zero doubt in their mind - perhaps even a majority of the population.  Clearly the word isn't an appropriate description for them.  I am not sure that it is really appropriate for people who have the occasional superficial doubt either. 

[mean]

You may be right, but at least in my experience it doesn't seem to be a majority of people who identify as atheists. Even guys like Richard Dawkins concede that the could be wrong--they just think it is such a remote possibility that it isn't worth considering.

[ShowMeKC]

According to scripture, Jesus himself doubted.

Wow, I do not know where you got that idea from...

[Maitre D]

Wow, I do not know where you got that idea from...

From the crucifixion probably, where he blurts out to God:  "Why have you forsaken me?"

A bit flimsy in terms of logic, but I can semi-see his point.

[Maitre D]

So at the end of the day, I'm curious, would you say that we're all agnostics on a sliding scale of 1-100, with MD up near 1, you around 50, and me at 99? Or would you break it down differently?

I'd put myself closer to 15-20 range.  There's absolutely a legit possibility this is all random.  There's also a great deal about Xianity I still just don't understand. 

I do think the 45-55 area should be "blocked off" though.  That's the coward's zone.