[Guille]

Originally Posted by Fredrick There are two versions of religion that are absolutely incompatible with each other. On the one side there are the monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) believing in the existence of a single god, and on the other side are the polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, etc), with believing there cannot be a single god, but that there are gods nevertheless. Atheism of course would fall in a separate category of belief.

In physics forums I have met many people that think like you. Well, they say we, the atheists belief that there is no god. We don't belief it, of course not, it is the opposite of theism, of religion, of belief, and fianlly, of god. What we the atheist are is simply people that can't live beliving something, that is why we deny god. Because we can't belief in something. And if for thousands and thousands of years there is yet no prove that "god" or something similar to him exists, or a prove of the existence (I have read many proves which are really weak: Descartes', for example) well, there is no motivation to belief, jsut faith, and, for me bleieving is faith, and faith is believing.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 I think that your assertion of the fundamentalism of nothing is right on the money, and this is something that I always bear in mind when looking at religion, science and philosophy. Thus the monotheistic God is the metaphysical creator, which creates the universe from nothing. Polytheistic faiths tend to have only one God, or a supreme God (like Zeus) who is responsible for creation. The other Gods in polytheism represent anthropomorphic (human-like) characteristics of God, which if associated with the creator would detract from the true nature of God (which is entirely metaphysical and can have no physical characteristics). DG

Thank you for giving nothing its own space. A compliment to you for being able to write so eloquently - even when I disagree with your portrayal. I have no power to undermine your words because in themselves they are valid, yet I fear that by bringing down the religious segments to a single level you have taken the color out of religious reality.

If I am correct you write that even the various colors we experience can all be brought back to white because ultimately white contains all colors. However true, the difference between a black and white picture on the one hand, and a color picture on the other is fundamental. Where B&W deliver an image as easily recognizable as the same picture in color, both pictures are different. I argue the religious differences are even more incompatible than this example.

Zeus was not the creator of the universe in Greek Mythology; Chronos was the father of Zeus whom Zeus challenged and then won his superior position. I believe even Chronos fought with his own father, the god causing creation, but I forgot his name.

In Norse religion, Odin was the all-father who sacrificed himself to understand everything. Even though Odin remained part of the new palet of gods, the old version of Odin did no longer exist.

In Hinduism Brahman exists and is the origin of everything, but Brahman in itself is unchangeable, timeless.

I find two sets of religions, one where the creator is still part of creation, the other where the creator is no longer part of creation. One contains a single god, the other contains multiple gods. The universe of the former was created out of nothing, while the universe of the latter may be based on the sacrifice of something (to be named god or not, depending on one's vision). One version has still the original god, the other is based on sacrifice, much like we are built out of the remnants of no longer existing stars. These two versions are not compatible. One states an existing god, the other states the impossibility of an existing god (but if you want to believe in god then relax because we have many of them).

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by <<>> In physics forums I have met many people that think like you. Well, they say we, the atheists belief that there is no god. We don't belief it, of course not, it is the opposite of theism, of religion, of belief, and fianlly, of god. What we the atheist are is simply people that can't live beliving something, that is why we deny god. Because we can't belief in something. And if for thousands and thousands of years there is yet no prove that "god" or something similar to him exists, or a prove of the existence (I have read many proves which are really weak: Descartes', for example) well, there is no motivation to belief, jsut faith, and, for me bleieving is faith, and faith is believing.

I agree with you. I was using the power of language to show that atheists are actually caught in a rather difficult spot because while atheists state that they are not believers, they are nevertheless believers as soon as atheists state that there is no god.

The difficulty is rather easy to explain, because neither side has any proof yet both sides believes that their version is true. Atheists say there is no god, but they have as much proof as the people who say there is a god. So atheists are believers; they believe there is no god. The problem is all based on language. There is a fundamental difference between believing and knowing. An atheist cannot know that there is no god, a religious person cannot know that there is a god (or many gods). All they can do is believe [that what one considers to be true].

For your information, there is a fourth category: Agnostics, who claim that people cannot know about god. They are not believers. They simply deny that we can know.

Not to make it all too complicated, I do not describe to any of the four categories.

[davidgow77]

I think your arguement there is very clear and accurate, but I think it also demonstrates that your understanding of religion needs to be clarified (just my opinion). You use a white/colour analogy to describe my last post, which was a very good way of looking at it. The white respresents God. Understanding what God is involves looking at the universe in a completely holistic manner. Splitting white into its various colours, we can see that the religions allude to explain the same thing (the white light...God, the creator). Hence, an understanding of what the white light really is (what it represents) can only truly be acheived if you look at all the colours (a colour is really a belief system in this sense... so one colour could be Catholicism, one Islam, one philosophy & science and one Hinduism). In this sense it can be shown that the worship of one colour at the exclusion of others will not lead you to a higher understanding of what God is. This is what a theory of everything alludes to explain.... the theory of creation (which could be seen from a monotheist perspective as a theory of God) because if you understand how the universe can come from nothing, then the rest of it is simply a case of logical deduction; the inference from this though is that logic itself can never explain the creation simply because logic relies on a sequential interpretation of the universe.... and if there was once an environment without time (i use this phrase in essence to explain the concept of nothing), then this environment could have no sequences. This is essentially why the laws of mathematics breakdown at the point of creation because from a purely philosophical perspective, they are a measurement of sequence and nothing more.

DG

[Guille]

Fredrick,

the only thing I was trying to say is the difference. Is the difference that religious people believe in something that hasn't beeen prove. And atheoist like me, just don't belief tin something that hasn't been proved. Many agnostic also think like you, that atheist just "belief" that there is no god, but it is not that, it is that if they can't belief that there is a god, the admit there is no god.

Arew you sure you are not agnostic? do you think we can prove/disprove god? if not, what are you then?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> An atheist like me, just don't belief in something that hasn't been proved. Are you sure you are not agnostic?

Guille,

From your words I gather that you are not an atheist, but an agnostic.

Atheists state that there is no god (but cannot prove this, ergo believe there is no god).
Agnostics state if you don't have proof, stop babbling.

Again, it is just the power of words. Both sides (religious people and atheists) don't have proof, so both sides are believers. A good example to explain it differently is where the lack of proof works two ways: when there is no evidence that there is life on other planets, does that mean there is no life on other planets? The lack of evidence keeps both options open yet if you make a choice against one, you have made - unknowingly or not - a choice for the other. The only way around it by saying you do not know - you cannot know - like the agnostics do.

Your second question, my answer: yes, I am sure. I am not a believer, and I don't agree with the agnostic condition either. But let's not delve into that any deeper, because sometimes water is just shallow, and sticking your finger in it only stirs up the mud, making the water very troubled...
For me however, the notion that we are the only planet with life in that enormous vast universe is kind of romantic. It tells me we should be taking good care of this planet, remain in balance with it, and most certainly don't fool around with scientific experimentation that is beyond our own control/outside our own realm of understanding.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 I think your arguement there is very clear and accurate, but I think it also demonstrates that your understanding of religion needs to be clarified (just my opinion). In this sense it can be shown that the worship of one colour at the exclusion of others will not lead you to a higher understanding of what God is. DG

Thank you David for very well self-supported words. I will clarify religion (or at least my understanding of it). There are two forms of religion; the one that sees everything as part of one creation, and the other that sees everything as not belonging to a single platform. While one is A, the other is 2. They don't belong to the same categories, but if you want to you can say that 2 came forth out of 1 (once), and that 1 can be seen as similar as A.

As I see it, there are only two platforms available for a TOE (and I try to link back to the original reason of this thread); one platform would show a scientific connection between the four forces, the other platform would show a scientific disconnection between the four forces. It is either one of these two, and the outcome is going to influence religion - small way or big way can be discussed, but it will influence the religions, just like the circling around the sun and circling of the earth itself shook medieval religion.

I think I have a very good understanding of what god is, but maybe your definition/idea of god is not compatible with my definition/idea of god. Some people see god as an entity, some people see god as the whole, some people see god as what is absent. There is no single explanation for the word god. We don't know too much about the people who invented the word 'god' so we do not even know the original meaning for certain. It is possible to guess: 'good,' 'whole,' or 'absentia.'

[Guille]

Frederik,

I definately think that god can be proved to not exist, that he is just an invention of the power and that he is the worst thing that could have ever happened to this world. In overall view, of course. We were then coming to a mich-more-detail positioning and thoughts, thats why it may have looked as I am agnostic. Not believing god because not being able to believe is also a property of atheists, but incluiding the thought that there is no god (I'm using the words think, thoughts.....not to use believe and come to the same discussion). And although I may disagree in some things with atheism it is the nearest I come to. I think it is very low the number of people that completely agree with their religion, agnosticism, or atheism.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I definately think that god can be proved to not exist. And although I may disagree in some things with atheism it is the nearest I come to. I think it is very low the number of people that completely agree with their religion, agnosticism, or atheism.

Proof is a big word. Not one that belongs to philosophy but to science, and even there is it used sparingly. But if you say you can prove that god does not exist, please do so.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Proof is a big word. Not one that belongs to philosophy but to science, and even there is it used sparingly. But if you say you can prove that god does not exist, please do so.

I never said I con prove it, in this post. I said that it can be proven. In other posts, I have stated that I can prove it. But this isn't the correct thread to do so. And most importantly of this reply, is that my proof is a proof for me, not for you, or for someone else. Maybe some do agree, but it is a proof for me. As well as thests' proofs. I also have paradoxes of agnostics and other things, and I WILL POST THEM SOMETIME IN A NEW THREAD. the basic thing about proof, that if you don't realise, it is that proof is relative. If you don't get that, you will never understand why I think god can be proven to not exist. Another last thing, we actually shouldn't think about proof at any time in any thing, because using philosophy, we should proof that we can proof. but we can't use something to demostrate the same something, so we can't proof proof.