Deconstructing god, and why I don't believe

[Ghel]

I still don't think you'd ever accept it, even with concrete proof.

I don't appreciate being told what I do or don't believe. You don't know what's going on in the privacy of my own mind.

How are those first comments contradictary? I really don't get how I'm lying between those three quotes.

First you claimed that miracles exist, citing Vatican investigations. When I asked how miracles, even if the exist, support the claim of a Christian God, you said that they don't. So I asked you what you DO believe. You skirted the subject for two posts, then quoted the Nicene Creed as your statement of faith. If you weren't outright lying when you said that you weren't trying to prove the Christian God by means of miracles, then you were at least being deceptive.

You still haven't given any evidence to support your claims that the Christian God exists, or that he causes miracles to happen. I remain unconvinced.

Being absurd doesn't mean false.

I hate to have to do this, but here goes:

absurd

–adjective
1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false:an absurd explanation.

[Hobbs]

I was trying to explain that miracles exist, and cited the Vatican investigations to show that even the faithful take such phenomena with a sense of skepticism. However, I was not outwardly trying to prove that a Christian God existed. My intent was to show that science and logic cannot prove everything/explain everything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I wasn't being deceptive or lying, you assumed that because I was using an example from my faith that I was.

Ironic that you don't like being told what you believe, seeing as how you did so to me. As for the 'absurd' you keep quoting me, I got that from a video game and I thought it an appropriate response. I don't think my belief is absurd, which is what you said I believe. People can believe or don't believe, doesn't really matter to me.

[Hobbs]

As for a non-religious miracle, I'm looking for the citation, so bear with me. I saw it on History Channel...I think it was a special about Angels.

Anyway, a soldier during WWII had taken up a bunk in an abandoned building as his unit set up within the city/town. That night, he was awoken by a medical Captain, who ordered him out of the building. He didn't argue, considering the man was an officer. He didn't recognize the man, but did note what unit he was from (9th Medical or something).

The soldier moved, and later that night, an artillery piece struck the building he had been in. He was amazed and wanted to find the Captain to let him know. That was when he learned the (9th Medical) was over 90 miles away in another area.

Okay, so I know I need citation, and I am looking for it.

[Ghel]

I'm so confused. What is your claim, exactly?

If science and logic are not the best tools for examining the natural world, then what method do you suggest we use that works better?

If you didn't think your belief was absurd, why did you use that quote, especially without a citation? How could you not expect people to see that as you describing your views?

[Hobbs]

[Sigh] I'm not really sure how else to explain it, really...

I didn't say science and logic aren't the best...again you're misrepresenting me. I say they can't explain everything.

[Ghel]

Ok, then. What can science and logic not explain?

[Hobbs]

Why are we here? Why was the universe created?

[Ghel]

Why are we here?

I don't think that there is any intrinsic value in human life. I think that we each must decide our own reason for living. Hopefully, one that is well thought-out and beneficial to humanity as a whole. But that's just my view.

Why was the universe created?

This is the wrong question. A better one would be, "How did the universe get to the state it's currently in?"

I'm a fan of the "Big Crunch" theory. The idea is that, after a "Big Bang," the universe expands for a while, then gravity starts pulling everything back together. Eventually, everything crunches back into a singularity, from which another "Big Bang" erupts.

[Hobbs]

Now who's avoiding the question?

[the_std]

"Why" is not generally a science question, especially in a "why are we here" perspective. Physics and chemistry don't generally care about a why. Science and logic are usually about the how.

[Hobbs]

"Why" is not generally a science question, especially in a "why are we here" perspective. Physics and chemistry don't generally care about a why. Science and logic are usually about the how.

That's my point exactly. Science and logic can only tel us some of what makes up our worl/universe.

[the_std]

Except that I might argue that the "why" is not a part of our world/universe as such, but a part of the reality that only exists in our head. The world itself does not care about why. Only humans care about why... And I don't think that that is enough credence to say that it is a part of the world/universe. It's just an egotistical part of ourselves and is therefore inexplicable, as no two people have the same ego or the same reality playing in their skulls.

[Hobbs]

I don't think it's egotistical. I think it's a natural question to ask "why" for phenomena and events. Just because humans are the only ones who ask it doesn't make it invalid, either.

Darn, I should talk more with my friend J, he knows these things much better than myself...

[the_std]

It's a natural question to ask why as in "why do things fall when dropped" or "why is the sky blue", because those are things that are eventually explicable by nature, by science, by logic.

I think you misunderstand my use of egotistical. I don't mean ego in a negative way. But it is ego because the questions you are asking are only about you, can only be about you, and have nothing to do with anyone else because, like I said, everyone's personal reality is different. That is why there is no answer, because nothing except the scientific is the same to any two people. Also, just because humans ask it doesn't make it invalid, but it does make it inapplicable. That question cannot be applied to nature, to the world, to this universe. It can only be applied to the reality in your head, which, as I said, is totally removed from the reality of the world and the universe.

[Hobbs]

So if it's okay to ask "Why is the sky blue?" Why is it wrong to ask, "Why was the universe created?"