What's Your Religion?

[PaperLuigi]

But it doesn't matter. Embrace the illusion! What else is there to do? :)

Life does not have to be eternal to have meaning, after all.

[Toad]

What if there is one ruling body, one God? What if other religions are all praying to the same God that we pray to?

It should be noted that I am not terribly religious, this is just a thought that I've had for a while.

[Turtlekid1]

Life does not have to be eternal to have meaning, after all.

What meaning to life do you think there is if all one gets is 70-80 years (assuming that nothing happens to him before that) with no lasting consequences?  What purpose can we have if we're the results of a cosmic accident?  Evolution, being an accident, spits in the face of meaning and purpose.

What if there is one ruling body, one God? What if other religions are all praying to the same God that we pray to?

It should be noted that I am not terribly religious, this is just a thought that I've had for a while.

While I certainly believe that there is only one God, I've always thought that the religions of the world can't possibly all be praying to that same one because of the glaring differences in their belief systems.  These aren't just doctrinal disputes, such as the ones that frequently occur between Protestant denominations, these are fundamental and most likely irreconcilable differences.

[Luigison]

Assuming an eternity merely defers the question.  Our little time on this Earth gives our life here even more meaning regardless if we are to live for eternity or not.  It could even be asserted that the prospect of life after death gives life here and now less meaning compared to the eternity after death. 

[superstarMASIAH]

MASIAH, you speak as though one has absolutely no control over the choices one makes in life.

I speak as though one has control over the choices one makes in life, sometimes they don't give a rat's a** what the consequences will be.  Their good-judment is still there, guiding them, they just don't listen or give a [darn].  It's called ignorance.  Look it up.....

[TEM]

Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence

There can never be undeniable proof towards the existence of God (specifically the monotheistic Abrahamic God). The reason lies in the nature of free will and the story of Adam and Eve.

Also the question of "Why is there evil in the world, why does God allow it?" "Why do bad things happen to good people" etc., etc. is answered.

When God made the perfect land of Eden for his first humans to live in he inexplicably put in the middle of it all an evil, forbidden tree. Why? To instate free will into his humans.

God didn't want robots that loved him undeniably. If you create a creature that has no choice but to love you, does it really love you? The only way to truly love someone is it have the free will to choose to do so, otherwise it isn't a conscious choice, but just a robot following its programming.

So, God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil into Eden so Adam and Eve wouldn't be ceaselessly loving automatons. God gave them the opportunity to screw up so they could make a conscious, free decision to obey and love him.

This is the nature of our world. God exists, but he let's injustice and evil to exist as well. He has put animalistic, tyrannical, sinful urges in us. God has done this so we can choose to hate him. So when we choose to love him it is a choice made by free will.

What does this have to do with there never being scientific proof of God?

If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip  us of our free will to either hate or love God.

Discuss.

[Turtlekid1]

You're both right and wrong.  You're right in the sense that we have free will, given to us by God; your argument about his not wanting automatons loving him because they have no other choice is sound. 

However, putting aside the actual existence of God, if his nature is as stated in the Bible, he knows everything, correct?  Everything also happens in accordance with his ultimate plan, correct?  So if he knows what our choices will be before we make them, and he allows us to make those choices, then obviously they're pre-determined.  So yes, we have free will and free choice, but we only make those choices according to our natures, which God has already determined. 

God allows evil to exist in our understanding of "allows."  But any true Christian knows that evil has already been defeated; indeed, it's been defeated since before it began.  God knew exactly how everything would play out; he knew that Adam would partake of the fruit, allowing sin to enter the world, necessitating Jesus' intervention.  Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a switch to "Plan B" as a result of Adam's will overriding God's, Jesus was always Plan A, because God knew what was going to happen in the first place.

God didn't instill sin in our hearts, we did that on our own.  God is the one who saved us from ourselves.

[CrossEyed7]

If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip  us of our free will to either hate or love God.

Then how did Adam and Eve sin (assuming Genesis is at least partly literal)? No one knew more than they did that God existed, and they were able to choose to go against him. Or what about Satan, an angel who chose to rebel against God while living in heaven? He obviously knows God exists.

Somewhat tangentially, I take issue with your specification of "scientific evidence." Putting aside debates over the distinctions between evidence and proof, along with the possibility of circumstantial evidence, I disagree with the implied premise that things must be proven scientifically in order to be conclusively, undeniably true. That is an unprovable philosophical assumption of naturalism, only justified if it is previously accepted that nothing supernatural exists. Actually, taken most literally, it's somewhat self-refuting, since you can't prove scientifically that only things that can be scientifically proven are true. While God must be logically consistent (he cannot exist meaningfully if he is the equivalent of a square circle, a married bachelor, or something that both exists and doesn't exist, and if you can prove that the concept of God is logically self-refuting, then you can indeed prove he doesn't exist), to assume that an all-powerful supernatural creator would conform to our limited understanding of the natural world is a bit silly. Trying to disprove God with science would be circular reasoning, as modern science assumes that nothing supernatural is going on, so it's not legitimate to examine the issue of God's existence purely on scientific grounds. Kind of a pet peeve of mine.

[TEM]

Then how did Adam and Eve sin (assuming Genesis is at least partly literal)? No one knew more than they did that God existed, and they were able to choose to go against him. Or what about Satan, an angel who chose to rebel against God while living in heaven? He obviously knows God exists.

Adam and Eve's original nature is very different from what current humans are. You'll take care to notice after they ate the fruit they were like "OH [dukar] we just seriously ****ed up!" As far as Satan goes, I can't guess what the nature of an angel would be, or why he would dare to defy God, knowing he full well exists, my argument is for humans only. I suppose it would have been well to mention that allowing Satan to have a presence in Eden was part of the whole "giving the humans a chance to screw up in order to deny God's will" thing.

[Weegee]

Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence

Copypasta? Just curious. Regardless, the article's neutral stance is refreshing. Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.

On an unrelated note, I've always loved this picture's poignant message:

[Nintendoobsessed]

Copypasta? Just curious. Regardless, the article's neutral stance is refreshing. Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.

On an unrelated note, I've always loved this picture's poignant message:

If an artist had done something like this with christians, it would be a person tied to a rock labled RELIGION.

[Turtlekid1]

[Weegee]

You say it, TK!

[TEM]

No I didn't copy and paste that. I'm insulted.

[Lizard Dude]

Ha ha, now you know how I felt when I wrote that Star Wars/Duck Tales fanfic excerpt. (These guys are easily confused, too. Remember they spend half their time here pasting lyrics someone else typed into the lyrics thread, pasting jokes someone else wrote into the joke thread, and pasting pastes they didn't write into the paste thread.)

Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.

Humans are quite successfully constructing a comprehensive map of the universe from a position akin to that. The real universe, though; not your fake [dukar].