the (mainly) non-Christians thread.

[Tribble]

red is such an exciting colour...

It's the colour of love and anger. isn't that ironic

Red is the colour of passion - both love and anger are founded in passion. That is why they are both red.

[chowzen]

Awe Kalster - fix it, keen to see what you're going to post.

[KALSTER]

First, just a quick reminder of what I really believe: No God exists; no free will exists, no afterlife exists.
Also, I am not trying to defend Christianity or religion in general, I am attempting to defend this religion which I invented yesterday and are making up as I go along (not sure if a similar one already exists).

Onwards!

, knows exactly how and why I feel at any time. "
>Does that make sense? if there was a god, why on earth would he care what you're thinking? What makes you think that you're thoughts are so important, that a god-being would sit and listen to your thoughts? Isn't that a bit conceited, indulgent and egotistic?

Like I said, God created us all for a purpose, a purpose that makes our thoughts very important indeed in the grand scheme of things. It is not conceited, because if it is so, it is so. And it is not just me that is included in this, it is everyone that has ever lived and even any aliens that might exist in other places. Our minds are the most important things in this universe.

"Also, as our creator"
> The whole creator thing is old by now...but, who created the creator? What about evolution? How did he create us? When did he create us? Science has a full explanation that is regarded as an excellent solution to some of those questions...

I don't know who created him. Chances are there are other universes than this one, possibly with other laws. Who knows what might happen in an infinite expanse of time? All indications are that the Big Bang was the origin of our universe, but we simply don't know what happened in the first instant after the bang. We don't have the knowledge to be able to look that far back yet. Thing is though, that when you think about it, only one almighty God could ever exist. Two beings that both posses infinite wisdom, capability and knowledge would be indistinguishable from each other, no? They would be the same being. When you think about it like this (assuming our universe does not die a heat death first), given life's continued existence in this universe with constant advancement, that eventually all sentient life would coalesce into a single ultimate being. If this eventually happened, then we would automatically merge with God and he would be alone again.

"We have free will, which will inevitably result in some not believing in him. In fact, given the clues available and the logic some are privy to, some can't believe in Him. That is not a problem though. Everyone gains enlightenment after death"
>You make it sound as if free will is some by-product, an inevitability, and that due to it, it could result in some of us not believing...but is that not the exact point of free will? Is not the notion of choice, in some senses, a rebellion against god and the rules and teachings that w must obey or burn...the motivator and engine that drives us to better technology, better medicine, a better understanding of our psyche? The power to choose no god, is not a result, it is a beginning. And your conclusion that we will all receive enlightenment after death is ridiculous! In any constructive argument, one cannot simply conclude that whatever has been said does not matter, because in the end you are right anyway...if you really want to have this debate, conclusions like that cannot happen, unless we all agree that free will does not exist and we live in a strict deterministic reality. <<-- look at that sentence " we all agree" . An excellent example of choice and free will. Deterministic debate is dead.

Free will is a consequence of the laws of nature. At the quantum level, events are only determined by statistical probabilities. This is part of the reality of this universe and was specifically created as such so that beings with free will such as ourselves can result. The true, logically consistent God is not the God of Christianity, nor of Islam, nor any I have heard of before. The world is not a proving ground or an elaborate test where we go to heaven if we pass and to hell if we don't. That notion is entirely ridiculous. This world is in fact a mind factory where minds are moulded and created in an ongoing process by the laws of nature and indeed by themselves by virtue of free will. You only need to have a sentient, intelligent mind to qualify for enlightenment.

There are no rules, but those we create ourselves. This, of course, posts a problem. We can't know that this is the way the world really works, because if people are afraid of what might happen if some people believed that no god exists, imagine what would happen if the bulk of humanity knew that a God does in fact exist, but also that what they do makes no difference as to where they might end up! That is why current religions and ideologies like humanism are so important. If everyone knew how the universe really worked, this experiment would end. Individuality requires imperfection.

"n a way that would have the capacity of producing beings such as ourselves"
> You contradicted yourself. Did god create us or did the universe produce us?

God created a universe that is capable of producing intelligent beings with minds and free will.

There was some talk about christianity on another local forum. Some-one suggested, that you may only call yourself a christian or a muslim or agnostic or atheist, if you abide by the rules of your religion. The idea that you can believe what you want to believe(*read* selective) is contradictory to most main-stream religions. You are either in or out, hot or cold.
I obviously think that rules, notions and ideologies from 4000 years ago is stupid and deteriorative to our development. Believe what you want, but..it is fun to debate it, it is informative and conducive to thought.

Well, there is no single Christianity is there? Anyway, this transcends all of that.

Why does heaven exist and not hell? Are they not the exact same thing?

Forget about the normal explanations of what heaven and hell is. They are not logically consistent to me, in fact, they are absurd. Think rather of "heaven" as a state of enlightenment.

Enlightenment is a huge deal. Imagine being (**mostly) able to understand how it all works, the full bounty of creation. Imagine being able to experience the wonderment of everything out there simply by thinking about them and experiencing them. Experiencing intense beauty, fellowship and wonderment for an eternity. Probably we would even be able to create and experiment ourselves to a degree. All of this free from fear, insecurity, responsibility, competition, etc.

**We can't ever fully know how everything works and have unlimited creative ability, or we would merge with God and the whole thing would be in vain.

Why do you think Jesus existed, when there is no proof of it in any way what so-ever, for someone so important, why is there no proof?

Well, I did say maybe he existed. If he did, it would not have been as the Son of God though. I see you have already fleshed some of this out with Riax. Certainly, the idea of Jesus has existed for a very long time and generally, he was an OK guy.

Would a god exhibit love? As love is only a word given to chemical reactions and uber basic human instinct? Is your idea of love not incorrect? Do you think love is an emotion?

Yes, love is an **emotion and can be explained in an evolutionary context. But love in the context I am using is more of an encompassing term. It includes general affection, as in the affection one would have for something one created, something that is in a sense an extension of one's self. Also, deep empathy and understanding and the promise and need for fellowship.

**Thing is, a being without emotion is just an automaton. Without emotion as a driver, a perfect being wouldn't do anything. Not unless it was preprogrammed by someone else with instructions, but then this someone else would also have to have emotion, or be an automaton that is preprogrammed, but then....etc, ad infinitum, ad absurdum. Without emotion, a being can't be a person. A perfect, articulated being can only exist as one that possesses emotion.

The biggest flaw i have with christianity is the concept of "eternity", nothing lasts forever.

How do you know? There is no real reason why a larger universe that contains ours could not have been existing for an eternity?

No such thing as miracles, just people to naive to give science a chance to explain it....+....question: why is it that a random sequence of events that ends in a benefit for the protagonist is a miracle, whereas if it ends in injury it's bad luck?.... surely both are miracles?...

Could a universe creator being enact miracles? Sure. Does it happen? Doubtful, or if it does, then certainly not in high enough frequency to stick out to an eye capable of rational scrutiny. Miracles are when the impossible happens, not when the improbable happens. A being that performed an objective miracle (one that does not simply appear magical due to a high level of technology), would then have to do something that defies the laws of our universe, i.e. by a being that existed before our universe in a different one with different rules or by one that can bend the rules to it's liking.

[Tribble]

Still reading but first you say no God exists - then you proceed to tell us that he made us for a purpose? I am already confused.

First, just a quick reminder of what I really believe: No God exists;...

Like I said, God created us all for a purpose,...

Explain....

[KALSTER]

Edit; sorry I mean: Check at the bottom of page 83.

I am attempting to defend a religion of my own making as an experiment of sorts and for some interesting debate. I am not trying to ridicule religion with this, but rather try and see how far I can get with a somewhat logical approach. Also, check the Aristotle quote in my sig. I don't actually believe most of this, but it is fun to explore the idea.

[Tribble]

You know what - you are not far off from what I think I believe. Except I don't believe that we were created - we a part of a greater whole. I also don't think we have altruistic purposes other than to experience what life has to offer in this form.

Interesting your hypotheses are.

[hamin_aus]

It is not conceited, because if it is so, it is so.

Stopped reading at that little gem.

Is that your -Prometheus- impression, or are you really just too lazy to manufacture a decent reply

[jee]

A question on free will. Do you think that events and actions have been pre=ordained, but because man has free will s/he may make a choice in such situation, therefore changing the path of the event?

[hamin_aus]

Do you think that events and actions have been pre=ordained

No. Nothing is pre-ordained. It's all a series of infinite random events that have come together to culminate in this moment.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one.

You get the picture

[KALSTER]

It is not conceited, because if it is so, it is so.

Stopped reading at that little gem.

Is that your -Prometheus- impression, or are you really just too lazy to manufacture a decent reply

Like I went on to explain, it is not just me that is included in this. It is ALL sentient life, including whatever myriad of sentient aliens might be out there. As far as that specific statement, what I mean; is it conceited to say you are chosen if you really are chosen? If you read the rest of the post you might understand why I come to that conclusion.

A question on free will. Do you think that events and actions have been pre=ordained, but because man has free will s/he may make a choice in such situation, therefore changing the path of the event?

I don't think they are pre-ordained. He created a universe capable of sustaining sentient life, so it was just a matter of time before it would eventuate. Also, a world where the dominant beings are all capable of free will more or less create their own reality. The collective also has free will in a sense, though it might not be self-aware. Anyway, the point of free will is that we have a hand in shaping our own minds, independently of God. That is the whole point of our fleeting existence on this planet.

Now I'd like to talk about the development of each mind.
One might think that there is an obvious flaw in this setup, namely: what about the countless lives that are lost before they have a chance of developing properly or that form in such extreme circumstances (abuse, extreme poverty, etc) that the resultant mind is "broken"? For this we need to look at the two interpretations of quantum mechanics, namely the Copenhagen Interpretation, where a measurement (or in this context, an act of free will) collapses a pre-existing wave function and produces a result from a previous state of "limbo" where all possibilities exist at the same time; and the Many Worlds interpretation where a measurement or observation (or in this context, an act of free will) causes a mutually exclusive split of universes where each possible choice lives on in its own universe. Both interpretations are acceptable at the moment, as both have the same mathematical results. The Copenhagen Interpretation is favoured, but not because of its superiority in predicting results of experiments. So, according to the Many Worlds interpretation, there exists a separate universe for each choice that is made, independent from any other universe. In our lives there would have been a series of defining moments that significantly take our minds into different directions. What does this mean? Well, that the vast majority of "broken" minds would have a bunch of universes where it does not turn out broken. Similarly, there would be many universes where "normal" minds turn out 'broken". That is part of the beauty of the setup. After physical death, we are free to commune with these other minds, as well as those of others, and gain the wealth of experience from them that is made doubly possible by the act of enlightenment by God. From this, we come to understand ourselves to a degree not possible in any other way, for our starting template (DNA) have actually lived the full gambit of lives possible given the starting circumstances at conception. We will have achieved our true full potential possible in hind sight (since none of it is pre-determined), before enlightenment gives us more tools to fully appreciate our lives, those of others and the universe they were formed in. We get to keep our individuality, and at the same time have access to the full store of amassed human experiences that can be investigated from that point of individuality by virtue of our retained empathy. It is crucial that these amassed experiences are only to be accessed through empathy, because experiencing them exactly as was experienced by the source individual would result in all the minds being exactly the same.

*Edited for clarity

[senile]

Do you think that events and actions have been pre=ordained

No. Nothing is pre-ordained. It's all a series of infinite random events that have come together to culminate in this moment.

Wrong again Jamin.

[hamin_aus]

Nothing is pre-ordained. It's all a series of infinite random events that have come together to culminate in this moment.

Wrong again Jamin.

What you do is die somehow... bear with, this isn't a flame...
And then see if there is a God in the afterlife, if there is ask him to send you back here, and then tell me to my face I was wrong about it all.

If I never hear from you then I'll know I was right

#WINNING

[KALSTER]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

[Lithe_Joint]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

Not quite.

You have an interesting take, which I comprehend to some extent, but there are too many contradictory opinions which need to either be ironed out or totally dismissed.

[Prime]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

No, you just completely lost me with the English.

I couldn't understand most of what you said

[KALSTER]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

Not quite.

You have an interesting take, which I comprehend to some extent, but there are too many contradictory opinions which need to either be ironed out or totally dismissed.

I am sure there might be. Feel free to ask any questions or refute any points made.

@ Prime: Seriously? Should I take it as a compliment or as a pointer to write more clearly and try and make more sense? I am always worried that I am splurting gibberish all over the page.

[Stuart]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

No, you just completely lost me with the English.

I couldn't understand most of what you said

Epic!

[Prime]

Everyone lost interest I take it?

Not quite.

You have an interesting take, which I comprehend to some extent, but there are too many contradictory opinions which need to either be ironed out or totally dismissed.

I am sure there might be. Feel free to ask any questions or refute any points made.

@ Prime: Seriously? Should I take it as a compliment or as a pointer to write more clearly and try and make more sense? I am always worried that I am splurting gibberish all over the page.

I'm not sure. Are you aspiring to start a cult?

[KALSTER]

Nope! This is just to spur some conversation that is hopefully interesting. I don't really believe most of it.

Also, I wanted to see if I could invent a logically consistant theistic viewpoint.

[Tribble]

But by saying that you have just taken our desire to discuss it away. Why discuss a belief with someone who doesn't believe it?

[KALSTER]

But by saying that you have just taken our desire to discuss it away. Why discuss a belief with someone who doesn't believe it?

I thought I was clear from the beginning that I don't actually believe this?

To be honest, I have not been making all of it up since I started it. A lot of it are things I worked through while I still believed some God exists, starting from Christianity to a form of Deism. This includes ideas like the non-existence of Hell. I thought it might be a fun exercise to examine the possibility of a logically consistent creator being and our role in such a universe.

It has certainly been interesting for me. For instance, you said that some of it ties up with how you see things and that is interesting for me. I like to try and look at things from other people's perspectives and gain as good an empathic idea about their inner workings as I can. I am interested in how people work. I have not been thinking this stuff up willy nilly, but have been putting serious thought into and try to defend it as if I really do believe it.

If you don't find it interesting enough to engage in, that is fine. No hard feelings.

[Tribble]

Nope - I find it interesting. Just more interesting if the other person believes it. I am still trying to work out what I believe and I guess that is why it is important.

[KALSTER]

Cool. Like I said, I have worked through a lot of the ideas expressed here at some point and am committed to it, at least within the confines of this experiment. I will certainly defend it as if I really do believe it and since I did work through it at some point, I certainly also won't be doling out harsh criticism to any beliefs you might express. I am at your service.

[Tribble]

Then as soon as I can formulate a response - I shall. Work comes first, sadly.

[KALSTER]

Cool. Busy day for me also actually.