"I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science."

[Mopsus]

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

[HisGrace]

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

[Mopsus]

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

The same human nature that leads to broken marriages and economic issues, also leads to war, murder, and rape. If you want to stop those things, start changing your own nature. Draw God into the world yourself.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

You have no idea what the consequences of just "snapping your fingers and ending the war in Syria" might be.  You could be setting the region up for a much deadlier war down the line.  You could be creating a power vacuum for an organization like ISIS to re-fill.

As MOP said, the changes have to come from within each and every one of us.  So far we've not done a real good job with that.  But you can do it for yourself.

[Greatest I am]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

Back on ignore you lying piece of garbage.

Regards
DL

[Mopsus]

I do not see why or how an astrophysicist would be better or more qualified to show that an imaginary God can  or does exist.

The only way to prove God exists is for him to show his vile and immoral face around here.

I would not expect him to live long if he can be killed as someone, if not I, would be sure to try to kill him for his crimes against humanity.

Reconcile with your father as soon as possible. You can't allow this madness to continue.

Back on ignore you lying piece of garbage.

You can't put your own nature on ignore.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

If you want to say god is just a force of nature, what I said wouldn't be a valid objection. I'm open to that, I'd identify somewhere between an atheist and agnostic, the Dawkins/Hitchens types who say that they are 100% sure god doesn't exist are being silly.

But the argument that an omnipotent, intelligent god would be morally complicit in everything that has ever happened and that it would thus be hard to call him "good" is a perfectly valid one. I wouldn't just write that off as "daddy issues".

The reason I accuse people of having daddy issues is that they want a god to come into the world as a strong-armed savior and fix all our problems, and then act bitter when that doesn't happen. To me, it speaks to an emotional and psychological immaturity.

If god existed I wouldn't expect him to fix things like broken marriages or economic issues. But things like wars, murder, and rape, if anyone can stop it then you should. If I could snap my fingers and stop the war in Syria right now, there's no question I'd do it. Any decent person would.

Have you considered that an omnipotent, omniscient God would have information you are not privy to that would alter your moral assessment of the situation?  This is why ethical arguments against Christianity such as the argument from evil, argument from hell, etc. can only take you so far because we are ultimately finite human beings, not exactly a suitable place from which to judge the creator of the universe.

Furthermore, there is substantial historical evidence for miracles (see here for example), so we have good reason to believe a God exists in that there are phenomenon that are more likely to occur under theism than naturalism.   As such, the evidence we do have for God is concrete and historical, whereas the evidence against him tends to make assumptions about what is good and moral from a perspective of severely limited knowledge.  So the argument against God's existence on the basis of the existence of moral evil just doesn't cut it, in my view.

[°Leprechaun]

Dawkins is actually an agnostic and hasn't said, to my knowledge that he is 100% certain that there is no Supreme Being.

As for evil, if one takes the stories in the Bible too literally (as William Lane Craig for example, does) then this literal God that many (if no longer a majority) believe in, is not very nice.

Clearly, the problem of evil goes beyond natural evil and human evil, it also goes to the question of whether the creator is all loving, which according to many Christians he/she/or it is. How could an all loving god or goddess be that evil?

[°Leprechaun]

The "god" of which Spong speaks is something deep within not some sky daddy that will fix our problems for us.

The authors of the Bible, seem to see this hypothetical creator in their own fallible eyes.
If one posits that they were divinely inspired, one can also argue (as many have) that their words are to be taken 100% metaphorically, which leads to problematic confusion.

I have meditated, not to have a conscious contact with this hypothetical creator but because it is logical to do so. One can be a so called "atheist" based on science or based on philosophy and perhaps, just perhaps, or maybe not, the latter is better than the former as some have argued.
If this hypothetical creator exists she can contact my unconscious thereby giving me the will to be impeccable with my speech and right in my actions, the Buddhist atheist is an enlightened atheist.
I don't call myself a Buddhist, because according to the Tao, "Buddhist" is merely a word, and not the infallible truth. We can't, by our nature, express what is not physical using physical words.

(besides, I don't argue that Buddhism is a religion, but rather a way of life and more of a philosophy, and a good one at that, than a religion). -I intend to discuss the "free will" argument at some point in the future.

[DC Al Fine]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

[America Needs R'hllor]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain. 

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain.  

True Buddhism or True Christianity or True Islam could simply be defined as what Buddha, Christ and Muhammad actually said (and did?). Everything else is interpretation.
We don't have an accurate picture of Jesus from the Four Gospels. Yes, there is harmony, but if you take only the statements which are the same that leaves a lot of grey area. You can get around literalism by saying that the contradictions are based on the fact that the Bible isn't to be taken entirely literally, which is obvious ("born again" for example). That's where interpretation comes in, but since Christianity as a whole has differing interpretations (free will for example), the crucial contradictions are more in the fact that not all Christians agree on doctrine.. (Spong V. William Lane Craig for example)

[RINO Tom]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain.  

True Buddhism or True Christianity or True Islam could simply be defined as what Buddha, Christ and Muhammad actually said (and did?). Everything else is interpretation.
We don't have an accurate picture of Jesus from the Four Gospels. Yes, there is harmony, but if you take only the statements which are the same that leaves a lot of grey area. You can get around literalism by saying that the contradictions are based on the fact that the Bible isn't to be taken entirely literally, which is obvious ("born again" for example). That's where interpretation comes in, but since Christianity as a whole has differing interpretations (free will for example), the crucial contradictions are more in the fact that not all Christians agree on doctrine.. (Spong V. William Lane Craig for example)

If we use that definition, I understand your point; nonetheless, Buddhism as practiced is often very theistic in many Eastern countries.  As far as Christianity goes, most Christians (including myself) do not see only the statements of Jesus as divinely inspired; as believers in the Trinity, we would argue that the Old Testament and epistles/apocalyptic literature of the New Testament, albeit not containing statements of Jesus on Earth, are inspired by the Holy Spirit (another member of the Trinity) and thus also authoritative.  Catholics would go a step further and also give such authority to the magisterium, so to claim that "true Christianity" as only what Jesus said and did on Earth excludes basically all of Christianity as practiced.   

[America Needs R'hllor]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

[muon2]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

It might or might not be. I've had students who have said they wanted to go into science to find the God particle (Higgs boson), and some actually did (at CERN). I've had other students who said they wanted to prove some conjecture about the origin of the universe, and some have and others haven't.

[America Needs R'hllor]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

It might or might not be. I've had students who have said they wanted to go into science to find the God particle (Higgs boson), and some actually did (at CERN). I've had other students who said they wanted to prove some conjecture about the origin of the universe, and some have and others haven't.

Well, I think there's a difference between these admirable, if ambitious, goals of finding scientific proof for scientific issues, and finding proof for something ambiguous and imo childish like "finding proof that god\santa\zeus exist".

[°Leprechaun]

Er Buddhism looks rather religious once you take the white folks trying to upset their parents out the mix.

Is true Buddhism a religion? By "true" I mean that there is no evidence that the Buddha was a religious figure, at least not that I know of. Buddha's teachings were altered by religious people, but whether they are truly Buddhists is not proven.

It's pretty hard to argue there is such a thing as "true Buddhism" given how syncretic it is in both the East and the West.  What is certain is that

As far as your remarks about the problem of evil, of course the God of the Bible isn't very "nice" as we would construe it - he demands obedience and imposes a penalty of eternal damnation (however you construe it) on those who refuse to believe & obey the gospel.  But this is a far different question than whether or not God is good or loving, so my comments regarding humans having no standing to be able to make moral judgments about an omniscient, omnipotent God due to our utterly finite nature remain.  

True Buddhism or True Christianity or True Islam could simply be defined as what Buddha, Christ and Muhammad actually said (and did?). Everything else is interpretation.
We don't have an accurate picture of Jesus from the Four Gospels. Yes, there is harmony, but if you take only the statements which are the same that leaves a lot of grey area. You can get around literalism by saying that the contradictions are based on the fact that the Bible isn't to be taken entirely literally, which is obvious ("born again" for example). That's where interpretation comes in, but since Christianity as a whole has differing interpretations (free will for example), the crucial contradictions are more in the fact that not all Christians agree on doctrine.. (Spong V. William Lane Craig for example)

If we use that definition, I understand your point; nonetheless, Buddhism as practiced is often very theistic in many Eastern countries.  As far as Christianity goes, most Christians (including myself) do not see only the statements of Jesus as divinely inspired; as believers in the Trinity, we would argue that the Old Testament and epistles/apocalyptic literature of the New Testament, albeit not containing statements of Jesus on Earth, are inspired by the Holy Spirit (another member of the Trinity) and thus also authoritative.  Catholics would go a step further and also give such authority to the magisterium, so to claim that "true Christianity" as only what Jesus said and did on Earth excludes basically all of Christianity as practiced.   

183. Not to commit any sin, to do good, and to purify one's mind*, that is the teaching of (all) the Awakened.

The Dhammapada
*also can mean "heart", I believe.

[°Leprechaun]

I think many people have misused the Golden Rule. Is it good to do something for/to others if they don't want it. Good intentions often have bad results. That's why saying religion is about doing good is problematic, from my pov it is not good to do to me what you would want me to do to you.
The gist of the golden rule is good, treating others with respect, but is it respectful to give me what I don't want?
This tangentially relates to this thread insofar as preaching religion on me is not what I want.
To do so is not respectful. Go knock on someone else's door.
Not that it is wrong to do it here, since it's what this place is all about, but if a Christian tries to befriend me with a hidden agenda, no thanks.

[muon2]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

It might or might not be. I've had students who have said they wanted to go into science to find the God particle (Higgs boson), and some actually did (at CERN). I've had other students who said they wanted to prove some conjecture about the origin of the universe, and some have and others haven't.

Well, I think there's a difference between these admirable, if ambitious, goals of finding scientific proof for scientific issues, and finding proof for something ambiguous and imo childish like "finding proof that god\santa\zeus exist".

But some of those who got into science initially had equally fanciful ideas about the origin of the universe or the interconnectedness of matter and energy, etc (consider some one wanting to measure The Force). With knowledge they were able to refine their ideas about what to investigate. Does that make them unwise to have started with fanciful ideas?

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

Fair enough, but while I agree that 'proof' really isn't the right term for what we're working with here, it is true that various theistic arguments are based on research into cosmology and quantum mechanics (regarding origin of universe and free will/determinism), so it doesn't seem that far-fetched for someone to go into physics in part to look for evidence for their faith.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

If god wanted people to know he was real he'd reveal himself. The Christian god obviously doesn't want to be proven real if he exists since people are supposed to have faith. Pretty futile endeavour there kid. But good for him for his education, I guess. 

That's a good point.

 I may be accused of making a strawman argument for pointing out that some Christians would argue this point with two points. 1) That God did reveal himself 2000 years ago and 2) If God were to reveal himself it would take away our free will.

Yes these two points may be oversimplifications, but I have indeed heard these two arguments.

God has never revealed himself to me. =Fact. Why should I believe in him or be attacked for not believing in him?

I wasn't making any comment on whether god exists or the merits of Christianity. Just pointing out that if god wanted to be proven real he could do it on his own. And that the Christian god specifically wouldn't want that. Christianity's emphasis on apologetics in the past however many years doesn't make an awful lot of sense in the context of their religion.

The fact that the Christian god hasn't done so seems sufficient reason to question his existence.

A god that forces itself on humanity is of the kind craved by slaves. That knowing God requires sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity, proves what kind of follower He desires. You might ask yourself why you aren’t amongst that number.

There is a kind of knowing God that involves sophisticated reasoning and personal maturity.  It is not the only way of knowing God.  Knowing God within the Christian understanding is in the most important sense a relationship, which may be open to anyone. It involves a seeking after by the person who would know God, but this seeking after takes many forms.

[Karpatsky]

He might never prove that god exists, but he did prove that geniuses don't have to be very wise.

Mmmmk.

Is "I want to be an astrophysicist to prove God is real using science" wise? I mean, I don't really blame him- he might be a genius but he's still just a child who was indoctorinated into a religion by his parents.

(just realized days later that my previous comment was incomplete )

Fair enough, but while I agree that 'proof' really isn't the right term for what we're working with here, it is true that various theistic arguments are based on research into cosmology and quantum mechanics (regarding origin of universe and free will/determinism), so it doesn't seem that far-fetched for someone to go into physics in part to look for evidence for their faith.

Going into a scientific investigation with the intent of proving something you already believe, rather than finding the truth, is how you get terrible science.