I have a question I would like to ask the faith based community. I am the founder of the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality is a religion based on making a solemn personal commitment to the pursuit of the understanding of reality the way it really is. I am committed to believe in anything that actually exists. Science is my Bible. In my life the desire to understand reality is sacred to me. Reality comes first in my life and my moral values are based on the axiom the the pursuit of the understanding of the universe, the way it really is, has value. To me – Reality and Truth are the same thing.
My questions to the Faith Based Community is, assuming that the above statements are my sincerely held religious beliefs, will God reveal himself to someone like me? Can one find God on the path of the pursuit of the understanding of reality? Is it possible for me to find God in the real world where God is observable by non-believers? If not – why not? Can a Realist find God without having to give up putting reality first? Or – is belief without evidence a requirement?
Science is both a blessing and a curse. We get excited learning about the mechanics that underpin the world around us and how to manipulate them for our own means. But in the process we start to dismiss the amazing as common and mundane.
Learning the physics behind what makes a car work doesn’t diminish the knowledge, skill and insight of the engineer who designed it. But yet when we find a plausible means to scientifically explain how something works, the awe that it works at all in the first place is deemed inconsequential.
You ask for observable evidence, but perhaps you’re surrounded by it every day without even being aware of it. If God showed up at your front door tomorrow and pulled a rabbit out of his hat, would you be convinced? Or would you be asking to see his hat so that you could figure out how he hid that rabbit in there?
“We know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart. It is through the latter that we know first principles, and reason, which has nothing to do with it, tries in vain to refute them. “ -Pascal
It’s not as if trying to work out an intellectual understanding of the notion of God is some new novel thing. If you really want to take a crack at it, start by trying to understand the intellectuals who have already done it and decided to drink the cool-aid. Blaise Pascal’s “Pensees” is an interesting read. C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” and “The Problem of Pain” are both easy reads as well. Then if you still find that this religion stuff is just a bunch of nonsense, then you can go on and never have to be bothered by it again.
“…he marked out [mankind’s] appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.”
good post
Yes – if God showed up at my door I would be convinced. I have “faith” that god is powerful enough to convince me if he show up.
But THE God? how could anyone be convinced that they aren’t being tricked by some force beyond our comprehension that isn’t THE God.
Right now we KNOW there is no real separation of things in this universe. It is all one thing, made up of one unit on some level. We KNOW that we have the ability to recognize the world and think about these things so we KNOW that mind and life is part of how nature works. We KNOW through quantum physics and recent results of quantum effects at larger scales that what we call matter exists only as a reaction to other matter. Without something to interact with matter becomes mere possibility.
My Apologies to Benjamin Atkinson—given I started drinking before we have met, and the damnable format of the nesting responses, I failed to note your response to me near mid-day. Your follow on responses do give less irritation than your straight forward over assuming exposition. And thats a good thing.
In truncated essence we have:
So, I see our dilemma boiled down to the crafting of anchors. /// Or in choosing metaphors rather than stating things directly. Metaphors can be useful but are a default device when dealing with people too stupid to address the subject directly. when STARTING with a metaphor, the author reveals a desire to defraud. Typically: “I didn’t say that” or “you misunderstand.” Metaphors allow one to be dishonestly slippery like that.
“If you’re cut off from an anchor, I propose a different anchor. If you’re anchor is holding, I have little you would find of value (except for my views on reality TV, which should be imposed by brown shirts). /// My understanding of reality and my sojourn in it is reflected in my Nom de Flame. I recommend it to everyone.
I take exception to ‘cheap drunk’! //// In obvious construct, I was responding with my “name” but I changed it to my status. Not even as cryptic as a metaphor. See how dishonest, confusing, and completely self centered their use is? Most “insights” are just that way.
I am of Scottish and Native American ancestry, and just because I can’t hold my liquor doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the top shelf. /// You mean two real anchors tying you down by voluntary accession? Yes, your anchors, your self actualization will be as you define. This has nothing to do with reality except as descriptive of what you’ve done to yourself.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My best take away from this discussion: “If the religious could be reasoned with, there would be no more religion.” Kudo’s to whomever made that comment.
Marc—I do hope you provide your own take away.
Others?—BENJAMIN???? Have you taken away anything from this discussion? And to anticipate your first error==make the take away ABOUT YOURSELF==not what you see in other people. ((aka the failures and deficiencies in other people.))
Faith is needed to believe that a god is not required. faith in what you cannot disprove. even atheists are faithful to their belief.
the god debate is like a circular reference that is diluted by semantics and out of grasp because knowledge and the words that make it mean something to me makes it mean something else to you, words from the same language but with differing faith powering them.
if there was a god, who created him.
if there is not god, who created me.
if nothing created me then why am i here
if science created me (evolution/accident) then is science/nature god?
science seems to control the government lately, so science must be god. science restricts our ability to think by forcing us to think within the boundaries of approved status quo science. (or risk humiliation and lost funding)
The church forces us to think within the bounds of what is allowed by the church, threatened with eternal damnation.
if both these institutions restrict thought, then i opt for neither. i opt for independent free thought based on common morals hopefully leading to a life of exploration, self investigation, enjoyment and intuition, leading to a greater understanding of our purpose, for without purpose we are nothing, without nothing we have something, and something is better than nothing, unless its a bad thing then you want less of it.
“The further away IT is from the source the more energy IT has”
sb
but what or where is the source. and are we likely to go back anytime soon. more importantly, what is IT. is IT we?
ahh the questions… spins me right around like a torus. no bull.
Ahem–you can’t post nothing but bullshit and not have a bull, or more than one, or a whole herd of them.
Your post reminds me of a statue carved out of butter at the Iowa State Fair, except you use BS.
I think I’m starting to understand why discussions about religion make me so antagonistic. Its the pretentious glib nonsense the subject draws out from otherwise sane people like Speter and Benji. My BFF Greg avoids most of it so its not mandatory.
1. if there was a god, who created him. // fair enough but any full inquiry should lead to the conclusion there is no evidence for the various conflicting god myths. They are obvious human cultural artifacts. One of the myths could be true, but it would still look like an artifact. What god would ever act like that? Things should be taken at face value until overwhelming evidence proves otherwise.
2. if there is not god, who created me. /// The “who” aside, yes this may always remain a mystery. As in myths, there may be various theories that could all account for it but its doubtful we will know for sure which theory also happens to be the truth. Science goes forward, not backwards.
3. if nothing created me then why am i here /// Whats the connection between nothing and why? Read some philosophy. Existentialism works for me. If a life in prayer to an answering god works for you–have at it.
4. if science created me (evolution/accident) then is science/nature god? /// Unnecessarily convoluted definition, but again, if it works for you. I prefer thinking of science as a tool to understand the world. “I” use a hammer to build a house, the hammer did not create the house. Same with science.
But as stated, the real antagonism comes not form the idea and argument for religion/god itself==its only when the consequential ideas affect real life issues. We see this right now with Congresscreep Adkins using his religion to restrict womens right to abortion.
We should all be antagonistic to asshats using their unreasoning faith to burden us with their fears.
Is that one or two more take aways? Why am I thinking about Kungpow Chicken? Is it science or religion that will give me an answer? If its religion, then which of the 793 religions? At least with science, there is only one.
Silly Hoomans.
interesting stuff, have you any recommendable concise books on existentialism. i wish i had time for reading and such rather than hurried random postings which serve more than anything to clear room in my head for more useless thought.
or better yet do you have a philosophy of your own that you wish to share. i would hope that your reading of many books on this topic and flair for words you would make a good ambassador for this topic. seriously. do post haste.
same for anyone else out there, concise theories dumped onto this one page that can be bought together and analyzed will lead to a better understanding. or more confusion.
I also particularly enjoyed Mr Andersons Breakdown on 2 forms of consciousness, however greater, elaboration would be desired.
However you define God it is safe to substitute the word nature if you realize the meaning of the word nature. Nature always has been and always will be and the word create cannot enter the picture when there cannot be anything new or more. At most you can talk about things changing.
Speaking of posting BS, I see Marc has declined to give us his take away if any.
Reminds me of Steve Martin in that LA based film where he is looking for a sign from god as to what to do. So, clouds form words, landslides reveal rock formations, traffic lights blink in morse code…. but Steve doesn’t get it.
give it an effort Marc. Even being wrong is a better start than having nothing.
You actually think there is any integrity in Marc questions? As if Dvorak Uncensored Moderators where people of integrity.
The media industry which created this blog, is a faltering dishonest array of self interest that again, initiates a needless riot of sorts, highlighting America’s failures in the education system.
Marc opens on the expression of a much older and more deep-seated unrest, rooted in the way a blogger seeking to create a needless fruitless controversy can emerge.
noname–as too many do, you over personalize the function/import of a forum. When I call out to Marc to think about then express a take away thought to this thread, I am talking to the many who stop to read here and post or not per their own druthers.
Deluding ourselves that every once in a while we ehlp someone else is one shared characteristic of any herd animal. What is good for us, is good for the group. And it doesn’t even matter if it is valid or not. The mere exercise is worth the effort. Like trying to think.
Try it.
bobbo, I think your an idiot.
Wow, thinking isn’t so bad after all. Thanks for the advice “bobbo, the pragmatic”!
At least you are warming up those brain cells. Good work!
My take is God doesn’t exist but if someone can prove me wrong I’ll change my mind.
Someone? Ha! It’ll be proven to you in due time. Just continue spreading your BS if you really don’t understand that BS spreaders get “special treatment” later. (I would provide scriptural references but somehow I doubt you could care less about such at this time in your development)
Well, a sort of super-powerful being with a mind kind of like a human is almost certain to not exist. Something eternal and all-pervasive we know exists.
Although religion and science seem to make everything more complicated than needed, it’s all very simple.
God is the first dimension. (i.e. precedes time*, 3D space, energy, matter)
[time as in rate of change, not past or future, they are imaginary, {faith believes in tomorrow, in reality it never gets here}]
God is just Consciousness. The foundation of the physical Universe.
/At the sub-quantum level, it is Consciousness that decides what space is to be what particle/
God is no less than all the Consciousness of the Universe.
Thus, Far far beyond any human comprehension.
Basically there are two kinds of Consciousness:
1) Primary (not what you think)
2) Secondary (a imaginary product of the mind) [just don’t confuse imaginary with non-existing] (All your thoughts, memories and perceptions are imaginary)
Similar to Energy, primary Consciousness cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.
Every living cell has primary Consciousness, it takes a organized group of neuron cells to create your imaginary / secondary Consciousness.
The cell’s primary Consciousness is derived from the primary Consciousness of the mass and energy that it is made of.
At each level of Consciousness, the Consciousness is aware of ‘self’ and other Consciousnesses that it is in contact with.
Sorry for the non-faith based answer…)
People that don’t believe in God are only saying that their concept of God is unbelievable. Which is understandable because God is beyond their understanding.
To say that there is no God, is the same as Consciously saying that there is no Consciousness.
Well, that’s it for me. I’m unsubscribing. There are enough morons in this country as it is; I don’t need my inbox littered with their droppings.
Rule nbr1 of international culture: NEVER discuss religion or politics with Americans! >:)
Well from my understanding is that Jesus Christ has been proven to be a real person who existed and claimed to be the son of God. What everyone needs to do is accept one of three options. Believe that he was some crazy person who had no real sense of reality and was delusional in his beliefs or, believe he lied and did not tell the truth and that the whole thing is a scam or, believe he told the truth and accept his claims.
What does your science tell you about those options?
agreed
“Jesus Christ has been proven to be a real” Based upon?
Their has been over a 1000 pieces of archaeological evidence found in the way of letters and scrolls that refer to Jesus Christ. Which by archaeological standards is more then enough prove he existed. These items were not just written by believers but by people making observations and comments to others.
Now use your scientific method, dig out the data and find the answer for yourself. I’m just pointing you in a direction where you may find the answer you are looking for.
Actually historians (without religious bias) have concluded Jesus was just a story, nothing more. There was no person Jesus. He’s actually a composite figure of 21 other stories around the same time.
Here is a link that points to evidence he actually lived. It was a rather easy Google search to find. http://whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-historical-evidence-is-there-to-support-the-existence-of-jesus-christ/
Actually he said he was “A” son of God just like the rest of us. The “the” is a misunderstanding of how the King James Bible shows possible changes during translation which we now know shouldn’t have been changed to “the”.
I thought that was “the good word”, that we are not separate from God but a part or product of such a thing.
Even if Jesus really existed we don’t know that he said any of the things attributed to him, so…
Here is the proof:
http://quranmiracles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/UNCHALLENGEABLE-MIRACLE.pdf
1st: Scientists said that perhaps we evolved from primordial earth slime — strike 1, scientists couldn’t get DNA to spontaneously appear in slime. If spontaneous DNA and cross-species major evolution was so simple that it “just happened”, it would be done in every high school’s science classes.
2nd: Scientists said that maybe the building blocks of life or even DNA was deposited here from meteors or comets — strike 2, amino acids =/= DNA, and all that the alien DNA theory did was move the spontaneous creation location from earth’s primordial slime to somewhere else’s slime, see #1.
3rd: Scientists said could it be that an alien or alien race created us, possibly our planet, or even the universe — it sounds scientifically plausible.
But if some people believe that alien has the name YHWH then they are just being non-scientific religious morons?
“Mall scientists”.
What always amuses me is people who claim to be simply following “science” but don’t have any real qualifications in any fields of science (how long have you studied? what are your degrees in?), and then they bash “God” when they also have no time or qualifications in the study of theology.
They simply expect “God” to call them up on their iPhone and introduce Himself to them and tell them the meaning of their life.
I suggest that the author actually spends a decade or two in the proper study of theology with a receptive mind. Perhaps he will find the answers he seeks.
Discussing theology (truth not dogmatics) with the majority of people is a waste of breath, because it is easier for man to believe a lie than the truth.
Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I hope your knowledge of theology is better then your knowledge of science.
Taking your question on face value; despite, it’s “obvious to all” attempt at misdirection to cover your reasons in posting your questions, you are asking the impossible.
You are asking god to bend to your will to validate himself.
You are asking for scientific proof, which requires complete experimental control to manipulate God at your command, invaliding an all powerful God and elevating yourself above God. Good luck with that power play your trying.
God doesn’t play that game, instead he sets the rules and requires you to humble yourself and have faith in the one sacrifice he gifted to save you.
God says its your move.
Yes – why is god hiding from science. Something as big as god would be scientifically discoverable. Even if one had to believe first to be transformed by God then science could measure the transformation. In fact if there were a God the science could determine which religion was the true one by measuring and comparing the lives of the followers.
For someone that used to be an active member of the DU community, I find the responses to this post depressing to say the least.
If anyone is genuinely open to solid facts, proofs and evidence, then they have been concisely compiled here:
quranmiracles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/UNCHALLENGEABLE-MIRACLE.pdf
Obviously addresses only a subset of the Quran. … I’ll leave that to you as your life work.
Isn’t the whole idea of this post to rely on more than just assumptions 😉
Check out the table of contents and see for yourself.
ANY of you that are sincere, this is a CHALLENGE.
Take a flick through the PDF and then reply here with you’re refutation of how it doesn’t prove the existence of God.
your*
Speter fairly asks:
8/23/2012 at 12:10 am
interesting stuff, have you any recommendable concise books on existentialism. /// I don’t think there are any BOOKS that are worth reading on existentialism. I tried to find them and failed. after the first sentence or paragraph they all launch into incredibly deep and impenetrable subjects of interest only to those academics who make a life study of the subject.
Jean Paul Sarte and Kurt Vonnegut write with an existential bent and raise the philosophy for discussion for those who spot it==but not much differently than does Walt Disney in his cartoons.
I think the value of existentialism is immediately apparent if you just start to think about what does life mean? Not what could it mean, but what DOES it mean? There does not appear to be any meaning to it. We live and die mostly by happenstance with no lingering consequence. THAT is meaningless in my book. Life appears on a planet, progresses, then dies out and the sun explodes and the entire solar system dissappears. What does that mean?
The challenge of existentialism is how to make your life thru this veil of tears. The meaning you choose to live by knowing at root it doesn’t actually mean or amount to anything. For that we have our blessed genetic roots. Living a life to avoid fire or a door slamming on our hands is part of living a good life. The ripple expands from ourselves to others: helping others avoid fires and door slammings. Your own personal bent may lead you to grabbing all the money so that others can’t afford fires or a door. (I joke!).
Fairly spoken, I think art informs us it is all about the Fifth Element that gives our lives transient comfort/enjoyment/exaltation. A billion years after the Milky Way no longer exists doesn’t impact this enjoyment at all.
Live it while it lasts.
nicely said.
Hedonism that causes the least amount of negative impact on others shall be thy chosen path for now..
i am quite happy to strive for a position of enjoyment of the fifth element, if she is still wearing that little white string outfit 🙂
Don’t accept fakes, Jesus is only offer for Prisoner exchange you get in this existential life!
My erotic pleasures don’t quite rise to the level of hedonism…. I wish they did.
No–I nice croissant, glass of wine, and anything with cheese is about as far as I go. YOUR phrasing made me smile though… but I recognize the stretch goal in my own case.
NOT doing harm to others is a large part of my happiness and I think everyone else’s as well, personal ability to tell shit from shinola notwithstanding. Its just half of the golden rule isn’t it?
Love and sex, two different things. Better than buttered low fat popcorn if you find them together …. and she doesn’t leave …. for a variety of reasons that always exist.
Meaningless is better than pain.
I equate “church of” as being a signal that something is based on faith, belief or imagination of some sort.
Better to be the founder of the Non-Church of Truth, since that would transcend any sense-based beliefs that mere “reality” could provide.
Note: There is not a Church of Science*. Except in a metaphorical sense. And what are metaphors except semantic substitutions for what is really being discussed?
No “church of” anything is needed by the truly aware. There are only two things in the Universe. That which is understood, and that which isn’t.
* Yeah, sure, there are those who try to sneak the terms together, but that’s not what is being discussed here.
The Church of Reality is Religion 2.0 where reality replaces dogma and proof replaces faith. Yet we still pursue questions about what the meaning of life is in a reality based context.
“Yet we still pursue questions about what the meaning of life is in a reality based context.”
Is the church you created pursuing the pairing of life meaningful questions and answers or just questions?
What are the life meaningful answers you have found?
Given the claim your churches answers are done in a “reality based context” and the church’s given mission statement, the answers are scientifically based and incontrovertible?
However, if you are only pursuing life meaningful questions, no need for the scientific method; your church is just another philosophy.
Love, falling in love, is that real? Can you prove to me that you love your kids, your spouse, your parents? I know what love is without having the ability to measure it. I know the existence of a hire being without having the ability to measure it…
At the local Marc Perkel Church of Reality is Religion 2.0, love the a scientific unmeasurable it is, is decreed forbidden; a sentiment that must be banished in his domain.
Hallmark greeting cards is the infidels tool for spreading this heresy and should be burned (no need waste the effort in separating the heretic from the card, the whole unit must be destroyed).
All is not lost, with the “Church of Reality is Religion 2.0” love can not be proved, but the sex is real.