God / Life After Death

[White Shogun]

I realize I'm running the risk of starting a thread that will devolve into nothing but arguments and flame wars with the questions I want to ask, and if any of the moderators feel this will get too heated or is too off topic even for Happy Hour, feel free to delete this thread.

I would like to ask the readers to give reasons for belief or disbelief in God and / or life after death - WITHOUT resorting to a holy book.

It might be worthwhile to suggest that the reader post his opinion and that we refrain from criticizing each other's posts, but that might be asking too much.

So, what say you? Anybody?

 

[Poacher]

The eye.

 

[White Shogun]

The eye.

What about life after death? Corollary to belief in God?

 

[Menelik]

Wow. Thats a hard one to do WS. Without resorting to the Bible. I would say that the sun rising, looking at the moon and stars, ect. ect. are proof to me that a God exists.

 

[White Shogun]

Looks like I over-estimated everyone's interest in a topic like this.

I was pushed to reflect on these questions when I joined an atheist message board discussion on the 'irrationality' of belief in God, or a 'creator.' The atheist position was that belief in a 'creator' is totally irrational; there is no proof.

I thought about it and came to a different conclusion. Speaking only to what is 'rational' or 'irrational,' my thinking went like this: The average person will look at the world around him and see that almost everything on the planet comes from something - a seed, an egg, etc. It seems to me then that it would be more 'rational' to think that the universe had a 'creator' because most of what you see in the natural world around you has a 'creator,' or 'source.' Whether it is rational or irrational does not make it a fact, and it doesn't mean the God of Abraham is ipso facto a 'fact.' I'm merely saying that from my point of view, belief in a Creator or 'Source' of all things is more rational than irrational, based on my observation of the world around me.

As to life after death, my thinking went like this: Every people on the planet since recorded time have believed in some form of life after death. Sure, it may be wishful thinking, a delusion of unfathomable magnitude, but.. maybe on the other hand, every people in every time and place have had a reason for it. I took this thought into a study of near-death experiences and found highly reputable doctors and researchers convinced of life after death based on their research and experiences into this phenomena. Based on these criteria, it makes more sense to me to think that our consciousness continues on after death. Again, it doesn't speak to any religion specifically, just that I feel the 'rational' position is one that accepts life after death.

This same line of thinking helped me develop a simple system of ethics, if anyone would care to discuss that, or any of this further, feel free to contact me by private message.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

i will approach this from two different angles, one for each question.

question #1: (without refering to a holy book) Is there proof of "god?"

answer #1: to me, it is quite easy to prove that there is something bigger than what we know, whether it is "the" God of holy texts or not. in fact, science has already established it, though few scientists care to examine the issue from this angle.

the Law of Entropy states, basically, that order moves toward disorder, and only outside energy can shape disorder into order. however, the energy required to create order displaces even more order, so it actually creates more disorder in its quest. i hope that didn't lose anyone.

think of it this way. to make a bar of gold requires a lot of effort. the energy to dig it up, the displacing of soil, energy to transport it to a smelter, and so on. in the end, you have a bar of pure gold (something that has order), but you have created much more disorder (the burning of energy in human activity, fuel, etc., the destruction/displacement of sediment, even the wearing out of rubber tires used in transportation, and so on) so that the small amount of order could be created.

in other words, any action in the universe creates more chaos, and ordered systems can't emerge wihtout outside force. this has been proven so many times that it is no longer a theory, and is now a Law of physics.

however, we are supposed to believe that all the beautiful systems in the universe (mathematics, physics, life, etc.) emerged due to random chance. that is contradictory to the Law of Entropy.

for example, no matter how many times you mix hot water and cold water eventually the temperature throughout the bucket will become even. no matter how many times you do this, the hot water will never somehow separate into a certain portion of the bucket and maintain its system. rather the bucket's contents mix until they become completely without order, and their randomness has become complete throughout the container. this will always happen unless some outside force acts upon it.

logically, if such a simple thing can't take place without some outside force making it happen, then it is impossible for all the phenomenally complex systems that are evident in the universe to emerge from the chaos of a big explosion without some outside force acting on it.

that necessary "outside force" could certainly be titled god. whether it is the god of the Bible or not is another question.

question #2: (again without a holy text) Is there life after death?

answer #2: i've not yet found anything that would scientifically "prove" this notion, but i've heard enough anecdotal evidence to lend credence to it. in addition to the points White Shogun made about every people in history having some sort of belief in it, there are a lot of "life after death" testimonials.

much like anything else, i am skeptical of someone who has something to gain from such a statement (they have a book for sale about their experience, for example). therefore, i am more likely to believe an instance where the subject has nothing to gain, and no reason/not enough knowledge to lie.

one such instance in my past meets this requirement. a friend of mine had a very young niece, one just old enough to talk and make sense. she was three, i think. anyway, this little girl LOVED pillows. they were favorite thing in the world. she also got really sick (cancer i believe) and was in intensive care. things began to look very bleak, and one afternoon when her parents and my friend were in the room with the little girl, the little girl spoke to them.

she said something to the effect, "he says it's time to go."

"who?' asked the mom.

"the man by the door," she replied. of course, there was no one there. at least, no one the adults could see.

seeing their confusion, the little girl said, "don't be sad, mom. he's already shown me where i'm going. and i have a room with nothing but pillows. i just wanted to tell you not to worry before i left. he says it's time, now. goodbye."

that's a true story, and the little girl was in a family that didn't go to church. i am of the opinion that my friend who told me had nothing whatsoever to gain by lying.

something happened. but only questions of faith has offered me any answers as to what.

 

[Observer]

Looks like I over-estimated everyone's interest in a topic like this.

We're afraid to get into a discussion that will be difficult to conclude satisfactorily in an Internet forum.

1. God's existence: The fact that things "are", that they exist, that we can even ask these questions --- is a proof of "God". Things that exist must (a) have been brought into existence and held in existence; or (b) be self-existent. So, it is not really a question of whether or not there is a God, but whether we can gain some true concept of what is the nature of God. More specifically, it is a question of whether EVERYTHING is God, or whether nature and creation is separate from God but dependent on God.

A first simple experiment would be to try to (1) will something into existence, or even to simply (2) try to take something that is already existent and maintain it in its present state. I suspect you will immediately fail on #1, and #2 is soon understood even by a child when he see things fall, decay, change, and die. Thus, from this first experiment you can conclude that you are not God. Perhaps everything else is God, but this experiment will show that you cannot be.

Now, the Eastern religions believe everything is God, and their philosophies get around this issue of fall, decay, and change by asserting that all change is an illusion. This is an intellectual dishonesty, and more a question for ethics than philosophy

However, we can draw another conclusion by the fact that physical things change or even disappear and lose existence: it must necessarily be that God is not physical. It is only a small step to then show that all physical things are held in existence by a non-physical force that can be everywhere at once.

2. Man's afterlife: Now, the fact that we can ponder a non-physical thing (for example, a mathematical point has no physical existence, but is strictly an intellectual concept) indicates that we have a non-physical entity to our existence. In fact, to be able to reflect upon oneself and think of myself as "I" is a proof that there is a part of us that can totally fold in upon itself in a way that physical matter can never do. It is a proof of a non-physical --- but nevertheless real --- component of who we are as human beings. Since this non-physical part has nothing in it that can break apart or decay or die, then there is no reason to think that it would go out of existence simply because the heart stopped beating. This portion of the human reality could continue to exist without the body, because it would not need food or water or sleep.
Does this necessarily mean that this non-physical portion of man would continue in existence for all eternity? I will stop. Edited by: Observer

 

[White Shogun]

Good stuff, Chitwood. Observer, I wouldn't mind if you continue your train of thought. Very interesting way of looking at it.

 

[Ground Fighter]

Excellent topic, Shogun. Ironically enough, this subject has been on my mind for a while recently. Its a strange coincidence that you started a thread on it.

I consider myself a Christian, but I cannot help but believe in some form of reincarnation. My reason for thinking this way is due to my difficulty grasping the concept of "eternity". This might be hard to explain, but I'll try anyway.

Take my family, for example. They raised me, they are my blood, I love them indefinitely. They are really all I know. If I were to die anytime soon (knock on wood), would I really see them again in heaven? In my opinion, no, because seriously, can one really imagine existing in some form of "afterlife" for ETERNITY? I rather beleive that my soul would be reborn through another life instead. I firmly believe that as I die, my soul is re-entering the world again through another life being born, but with no recollection or memory of my previous life.

I know I know, you're all probably reading this post and thinking to yourselves, "Wow, Ground Fighter needs to see a shrink." But, in all honeslty, I have a lot of theories about what happens when you die, and this for some odd reason, seems to be the one I think fits best.Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[White Shogun]

I might recommend you see a psychiatrist, Ground Fighter, but it certainly wouldn't be because of your belief in reincarnation.

Just busting on you a bit, man.

Have you heard of Ian Stevenson? His studies might bolster your internal argument for reincarnation, if you need it.

 

[jaxvid]

We're afraid to get into a discussion that will be difficult to conclude satisfactorily in an Internet forum.

Since when has that ever stopped anybody here????

1. God's existence: The fact that things "are", that they exist, that we can even ask these questions --- is a proof of "God".

Sheesh! How does that compute????
How about the fact that there is no physical evidence?

Things that exist must (a) have been brought into existence and held in existence; or (b) be self-existent.

If something is self-existent then why is it necessary to posit the existance of a God?

It is only a small step to then show that all physical things are held in existence by a non-physical force that can be everywhere at once.

It is NOT a small step and your conclusion is only your opinion and not widely held by science.

2. Man's afterlife: Now, the fact that we can ponder a non-physical thing (for example, a mathematical point has no physical existence, but is strictly an intellectual concept) indicates that we have a non-physical entity to our existence.

Not true at all, you can contemplate lots of things in the mass of cells that make up your brain, that does not mean there is an actual existance of non-physical things. Electro-chemical impulses are real things going on in your brain not in some weird other worldly existance.

Since this non-physical part has nothing in it that can break apart or decay or die, then there is no reason to think that it would go out of existence simply because the heart stopped beating.

Sure it would, it's only electrochemical impulses in the brain and when they stop so does the thinking.

 

[Ground Fighter]

I might recommend you see a psychiatrist, Ground Fighter, but it certainly wouldn't be because of your belief in reincarnation.

Just busting on you a bit, man.

Have you heard of Ian Stevenson? His studies might bolster your internal argument for reincarnation, if you need it.

I read up on his Wiki page, and his theories about reincarnation seem to fit well with my own personal beliefs. I'll pursue a bit more info about him tomorrow when I have some time. Thanks for throwing his name my way, Shogun.

Oh yeah, and I'll keep you updated on my next shrink-visit. Hopefully, I won't drive this new guy to drink, as I have done to many others in the past

. j/k Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[C Darwin]

If heaven is multicultural, do any of us really want to go?

I'll be seeing you all in Valhalla!

 

[Ground Fighter]

If heaven is multicultural, do any of us really want to go?

I'll be seeing you all in Valhalla!

Yeah, thats all I need. I can see it already. I'd sign up for a flag football league in heaven, and as soon as I get on a team, I'd have someone move me from reciever to tight end so I can block for Walter Payton.

Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[Observer]

I thought about it and came to a different conclusion. Speaking only to what is 'rational' or 'irrational,' my thinking went like this: The average person will look at the world around him and see that almost everything on the planet comes from something - a seed, an egg, etc. It seems to me then that it would be more 'rational' to think that the universe had a 'creator' because most of what you see in the natural world around you has a 'creator,' or 'source.' Whether it is rational or irrational does not make it a fact, and it doesn't mean the God of Abraham is ipso facto a 'fact.' I'm merely saying that from my point of view, belief in a Creator or 'Source' of all things is more rational than irrational, based on my observation of the world around me.

As to life after death, my thinking went like this: Every people on the planet since recorded time have believed in some form of life after death. Sure, it may be wishful thinking, a delusion of unfathomable magnitude, but.. maybe on the other hand, every people in every time and place have had a reason for it...Based on these criteria, it makes more sense to me to think that our consciousness continues on after death. Again, it doesn't speak to any religion specifically, just that I feel the 'rational' position is one that accepts life after death.

This same line of thinking helped me develop a simple system of ethics, if anyone would care to discuss that, or any of this further, feel free to contact me by private message.

We might also call this the "reasonableness" argument. I will take a guess at where you are heading with your ethical system: if something is rational and reasonable, we are then obliged to act according to this until such time as someone may uncover other evidences that hold an even stronger claim on rationality. As such, we would be obligated intellectually to recognize that a seed comes from the parent plant, and that the cosmos comes from a parent-Creator. Similarly, but not identically, we would have some obligation to act in accord with a belief in an after-life because that is the tradition of our ancestors, and we have not really uncovered strong enough evidence to overturn that belief. I would say that in this case, the intellect itself is probably not obligated to this belief, but that the mouth is obligated to say nothing to the contrary unless it has some data that can actually have a constructive impact on the status quo.

Is my guess on the right track?

It can be a difficult thing to abstract real knowledge from the data of life's experiences and the measurements of science. Per jaxvid, I will say that it is actually impossible to truly prove something from physical data because we do not have full knowledge and control of all the variables involved. For instance, a theory about the formation of the stars can not be proved because there is no laboratory so large that it could contain a controlled experiment of it. Are the reports of "near death" experiences proof that there is an after-life? I would say not, because there are other potential explanations. JimmyC's story about the little girl is a strong indicator of an after-life, but it also could have other explanations such as the little girl having watched a television program on this topic. This "physical appearance vs. actual truth" is one reason why a revelation of some kind (Shogun's "holy book") is needed to clarify what might seem to be true from what is the actual truth.

But there is no reason to think that reality is confined to things that have length, height, width, and mass. Even in grade-school math we learned that a line is not the thing we made with a pencil, but it is rather a straight thing of infinite length and no thickness. It has no physical reality, but it is real --- maybe more real than physical things, because the concept of "line"does not fall apart with age and decay, as will happen to a pencil sketch on a sheet of paper. Once a person realizes that there is more to reality than can be measured with a scale and a ruler, then we can look at such questions as the immortality of the soul and produce solid answers. Once a person can provide an objective answer to the medieval question about "how many angels [spiritual beings having no physical dimensions] can dance on the tip of a pin [an entity having physical dimensions, but narrowing to 'nothing', which has no dimensions]", then it is at that point that a true philosophy and a true science can begin.

Miracles are at this intersection of "physical & real vs. non-physical & real" and some miracles are a proof of an after-life. Now, before telling me that "miracles cannot exist", then I will first warn you that a system that does not admit of the possibility of miracles cannot be considered a science. Science in fact is based on the idea that there are physical laws in nature. A miracle is, by the usual understanding, a suspension of the laws of physics and chemistry. If there is no possibility of suspending these laws, then there is no law but rather only a thing that is non-understandable.
Edited by: Observer

 

[Sean]

If heaven is multicultural, do any of us really want to go?

I'll be seeing you all in Valhalla!

I don't know if you are familiar with Finis Jennings Dake (creator of the Dake Study Bible), but he believed that while all races can enter heaven if they believe in Jesus Christ, that heaven will be someone segregated. On his wikipedia page is a link to 30 Biblical reasons for segregation.

I'm a Christian, but without the Bible it is, of course, hard to prove God's existence. I think it's interesting that some of the older most influencial scientists of all time believed in God as well, such as Isaac Newton.

Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.

Of course this doesn't "prove" God either, but I think this is one of the bases of Christianity. You can't see God. It is up to you through faith to believe in Him. As Martin Luther reiterated, "The just shall live by faith".

I'm afraid I can't remember (I think it may have been C.S. Lewis, but I could be way off), but anyway, I remember seeing a quote where some famous person was asked why he believed in God without physical proof. He said something to the effect of; If somebody believes in God, and there is no God, he doesn't lose anything. But if someone doesn't believe in God, and there is a God, you're in trouble. In effect better safe than sorry is what this man said.


I should add that the use of the Bible is sort of like taking a first hand account of people who have actually seen God (such as Moses did), and taking their word for it. Edited by: Sean

 

[Don Wassall]

I'm always both amused and angry by how omnipotent science always acts, when in reality we know so little about ourselves, our planet, and the universe.


As for the universe, isn't it an impossibility that it was never in existence? The "Big Bang Theory" posits that a super-compressed marble-sized piece of matter exploded and has been expanding and moving at the speed of light in all directions for billions of years since, creating "the universe."


Besides how ludicrous the theory is on its face, where did that original matter come from that exploded? How can something emerge from nothing? The universe has always been here. When one realizes that, the idea of intelligent design and universalconsciousness becomes much less purely spiritual in nature and thus more logical.

 

[Observer]

Things that exist must (a) have been brought into existence and held in existence; or (b) be self-existent.

If something is self-existent then why is it necessary to posit the existance of a God?

If it is self-existent, then it IS God.

It is only a small step to then show that all physical things are held in existence by a non-physical force that can be everywhere at once.

It is NOT a small step and your conclusion is only your opinion and not widely held by science.

Because matter changes and decays, it cannot be self-existent. But it does indeed exist. Thus, the sustaining "force" (not force in the physics sense) must be non-material, having no dimensions of height, length, width, mass, time, etc.
This does not answer whether or not matter may have always existed, only whether or not it is self-existing. (If the self-existent "force" always held physical matter in existence from eternity, then matter would be eternal, but not self-existent.)

Anyway, who are these "scientists"? Can science answer questions that are beyond physical measurements? (In the Latin sense of science as knowledge, then this would be "yes", but usually today people mean the "physical sciences".)

2. Man's afterlife: Now, the fact that we can ponder a non-physical thing (for example, a mathematical point has no physical existence, but is strictly an intellectual concept) indicates that we have a non-physical entity to our existence.

Not true at all, you can contemplate lots of things in the mass of cells that make up your brain, that does not mean there is an actual existance of non-physical things. Electro-chemical impulses are real things going on in your brain not in some weird other worldly existance.

Ideas are real, but not physical. The storage mechanism may be physical in the chemistry of the brain, but their essence can be communicated to others without sharing the same brain cells. We can share ideas with one another without trading brain cells. Their reality ordinarily requires physical means to be transmitted (the voice on sound waves, pages in a textbook, etc.), but the idea in itself is not physical. Mathematics is a thoroughly non-physical "science", a spiritual study. The proofs of geometry are real proofs, more real than can be done with any physical experiment using boards that are mostly straight and round objects that are close to circular.
Edited by: Observer

 

[Menelik]

How can something emerge from nothing?  The universe has always been here.  When one realizes that, the idea of intelligent design and universal consciousness becomes much less purely spiritual in nature and thus more logical.

I've always wondered what was here at the beginning. Saint Augustine argued that time did not begin until God created the Universe (and time along with it). Granted that the big bang theory is a theory are there any theories supporting your hypothesis?

 

[Sean]

The "Big Bang Theory" posits that a super-compressed marble-sized piece of matter exploded and has been expanding and moving at the speed of light in all directions for billions of years since, creating "the universe."

I've always been amased how professors can teach this trash, and then completely discount any student who mentions God. To me its almost exactly like the Emperors new clothes. Everybody wants to seem so wise

 

[Observer]

How can something emerge from nothing?  The universe has always been here.  When one realizes that, the idea of intelligent design and universal consciousness becomes much less purely spiritual in nature and thus more logical.

I've always wondered what was here at the beginning. Saint Augustine argued that time did not begin until God created the Universe (and time along with it). Granted that the big bang theory is a theory are there any theories supporting your hypothesis?

Like Don, the ancient Greeks mostly believed in an eternal universe, I think.

Aquinas figured that you couldn't prove it one way or the other, were it not for God having revealed it in Genesis.

Sometimes people will use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "usable energy is running out" to show that there was a creation at a certain point in time X number of years ago. I don't think Western science has many counter-arguments to this at the moment.Edited by: Observer

 

[Don Wassall]

It's impossible for "something" to be created out of "nothing." It can only be done by divine force, or a force of some kind which already was in existence, thus there was never a state of nothingness. The original force had to always be.


Science is often timesthe real superstitious faith-based religion. The Big Bang Theory, the theory of evolution, both require a huge leap of irrational faith to believe in.

 

[Sean]

It's impossible for "something" to be created out of "nothing."  It can only be done by divine force, or a force of some kind which already was in existence, thus there was never a state of nothingness.  The original force had to always be.


Science is often times the real superstitious faith-based religion.  The Big Bang Theory, the theory of evolution, both require a huge leap of irrational faith to believe in.

I totally agree, and I've mentioned things like this in biology class before.Edited by: Sean

 

[White Shogun]

I'll have to try and find the article, but astronomer's have made a recent discovery that puts the so-called Big Bang into doubt.

The Big Bang theory was created to explain why all the galaxies and stars in the universe appear to be moving away from each other at a fixed rate of speed. I think Carl Sagan said that at some point, millions or billions of years from now, there would be no stars visible in the sky. It would be total blackness.

Astronomers have noticed a shift in red light energy that indicates these galaxies may not be moving away at the same rate of speed after all, which means that we can't really estimate the age of the universe after all.

But the most interesting discovery, the one I mentioned in the first paragraph, is that it appears that galaxies in a certain cluster of the night sky are actually moving toward a fixed point in the sky. Like being drawn toward a drain, all being drawn to a single point. More studies are called for (harumph!) but it is definitely changing the way the age of the universe and it's 'beginning' are being viewed.

Of course, most scientists will still be trumpeting how we 'know' for a fact that the universe was created by the big bang for years to come.

 

[Bronk]

Poacher's answer -- the eye -- is actually a pretty good argument, except that he dropped it in so cryptically. What I believe he is saying is that the complex way that the eye works by delivering visual images to our brain would have to be the creation of a supreme engineer and not the product of random chance.

In fact, the idea that life and its forms developed or constructed themselves without any applied regularity is, itself, kind of a silly idea. It's like saying
Gone With The Wind was the product of an explosion in a typewriter factory.Edited by: Bronk