What do you believe and why?

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know.

An intelligent reason as to why I don't know?
I don't know, because nobody has solved that riddle yet.
How could I know?

There seems to be a presumption that someone should know; that someone has to have figured it out. This isn't helpful, in my opinion, because it draws people toward those who pretend to know; that is, those who confidently pontificate on the matter without ever having touched a book on cosmology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can we safely say that the origin of all of this defies our logic?

Sure.

Because what we perceive as "logical" is subject to limited experience. Limited in the sense that it is what feels natural for macroscopic objects traveling at sub-light speeds.

We can't even imagine what it is like for an insect, who has to worry more about surface tension then about gravity.

The quantum world is even more alien to us.
To quote Krauss: "Is it logical that an object can be in two places at once? No! But that's exactly what we see happen in the quantum world. Our logic and common sense developped to avoid being eaten by predators, not to understand quantum physics."

I wouldn't expect anything less then an unimaginable explanation of what the universe came from.

But how incredible it is, isn't what is relevant.
What is relevant is, how well supported the claims are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only logical explanation we know about the origin of the universe is creation.

You can't logically assume something can create itself.

Who created the ice in my back yard last night?

 

[Colter]

You can only trust (or refuse to trust) a being that you believe to exist.

True, but keep your mind open to the possibility that finite mind is fallible. If you ever become dissatisfied with yourself and sincerely turn to the Father fragment that indwells you, it is waiting patiently for that glorious day but always respectful of your true will. The Father responds to the faintest flicker of faith.

 

[Colter]

Who created the ice in my back yard last night?

The impersonal laws of physics which originate in the Infinite and Eternal I AM.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The universe can't logically be uncaused or self-caused, therefore, the universe was caused

Let's say I agree to the idea that the universe was "caused". Eventhough that term may by non-sensical for the physical state/environment we are talking about here. After all, the space-time continuum doesn't exist at this point, yet we are pretending that temporal phenomena still apply.

However...

How on earth did you then make the jump to:

...therefore, the universe was caused by an uncaused being

I simply don't see how this follows. At all.

Please, explain.

 

[Colter]

There seems to be a presumption that someone should know; that someone has to have figured it out. This isn't helpful, in my opinion, because it draws people toward those who pretend to know; that is, those who confidently pontificate on the matter without ever having touched a book on cosmology.

I hope this isn't too much to read:

Relativity of Concept Frames​

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true. God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place." UB 1955
​

 

[DogmaHunter]

St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica

Seriously, this is basic reading for someone who wants to understand the metaphysical concept of God. It looks like you guys have never read something about what you're discussing.

It's actually more like "us guys" have moved on from medieval "logic".

People are discussing this, like, for more than 5000 years.

Yes. And after all this time, you are still repeating the same arguments. They weren't valid 5000 years ago and they aren't valid today.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

True, but keep your mind open to the possibility that finite mind is fallible.

Given the fallibility of the human mind, what are to make of the overly confident assertions of the religious who claim to know this or that about some unseen supernatural realm?

If you ever become dissatisfied with yourself and sincerely turn to the Father fragment that indwells you, it is waiting patiently for that glorious day but always respectful of your true will. The Father responds to the faintest flicker of faith.

Why he doesn't respond to doubt, however, remains unclear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The impersonal laws of physics which originate in the Infinite and Eternal I AM.

Nice dodge.

The answer, off course, is that the cause of ice is a phenomena known as freezing.

During freezing tempuratures, ice is "created".

The point is, that just because stuff is assembled into stuff - creating other new stuff - it doesn't necessarily follow that a sentient being was involved who planned the whole thing to happen.

You are just piling on assumptions on assumptions. And you can't justify any of them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I hope this isn't too much to read:

Relativity of Concept Frames​

"Partial, incomplete, and evolving intellects would be helpless in the master universe, would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern, were it not for the innate ability of all mind, high or low, to form a universe frame in which to think. If mind cannot fathom conclusions, if it cannot penetrate to true origins, then will such mind unfailingly postulate conclusions and invent origins that it may have a means of logical thought within the frame of these mind-created postulates. And while such universe frames for creature thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree.

Conceptual frames of the universe are only relatively true; they are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension. The understandings of truth, beauty, and goodness, morality, ethics, duty, love, divinity, origin, existence, purpose, destiny, time, space, even Deity, are only relatively true.​

This reiterates a commonly accepted truth: that our elaborated theories/models of the world are imperfect, and that the empirical data on which they are based is impoverished.

God is much, much more than a Father, but the Father is man’s highest concept of God; nonetheless, the Father-Son portrayal of Creator-creature relationship will be augmented by those supermortal conceptions of Deity which will be attained in Orvonton, in Havona, and on Paradise. Man must think in a mortal universe frame, but that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place." UB 1955

I think it's important to emphasise that, as imperfect as our best models are, they do tend to become more sophisticated over time, and so our understanding grows.

Regarding religion, however, I'm skeptical as to whether our present-day theological models are any better than they were 2000 years ago. Whereas in science the errors or shortcomings of a model are regularly discussed, in religion, the theological model is sacrosanct and discussion of its shortcomings is often suppressed, sometimes with violence.

Many even consider their preferred theological model to be perfect, without error, infallible, and unnameable. They don't accept what the UB says here about their model being "relatively true;" they believe it is absolutely true; that it cannot, and should not, be questioned. This is why many people question whether such strident religious faith is reasonable: how do you reason with someone who won't even entertain the possibility that their model could be wrong?​

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In response to my previous post, I suspect that you will tell me that our theological models have indeed become more sophisticated, culminating at last in the Urantia Book, the pinnacle of theological wisdom on Earth. How many times have we heard about the final revelation, the last complete and perfect revelation of divine wisdom to humankind? How many religious believers regard their religion as the end-point of thousands of years of theological speculation?

 

[Colter]

This reiterates a commonly accepted truth: that our elaborated theories/models of the world are imperfect, and that the empirical data on which they are based is impoverished.



I think it's important to emphasise that, as imperfect as our best models are, they do tend to become more sophisticated over time, and so our understanding grows.

Regarding religion, however, I'm skeptical as to whether our present-day theological models are any better than they were 2000 years ago. Whereas in science the errors or shortcomings of a model are regularly discussed, in religion, the theological model is sacrosanct and discussion of its shortcomings is often suppressed, sometimes with violence.

Many even consider their preferred theological model to be perfect, without error, infallible, and unnameable. They don't accept what the UB says here about their model being "relatively true;" they believe it is absolutely true; that it cannot, and should not, be questioned. This is why many people question whether such strident religious faith is reasonable: how do you reason with someone who won't even entertain the possibility that their model could be wrong?

Again you are absolutely correct! The religions of "authority" while motivated to preserve truths important to them in one age, end up petrifying those truths AND adding their own speculative interpretations about those truths, speculations which ALSO become part of the now diluted and compromised truth, which is further preserved in scripture, which is further edited and refined by still other adherents to "the only truth". So we end up with what we have in the collection of Bible books, a layer cake of preservation, revision, reinterpretation, additional revelation, preservation, revision, prophecy, revision, reinterpretation, editing etc. Its exactly what we should expect to find.

The inconsistency and evolution in the so called "scripture" add to their authenticity rather than detract in my opinion. There is evidence of real confliction in the authors between the old ways and the new with the audience in mind.

The church is afraid that if you discover inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the record, that it may lead one to loose faith, when in fact their pride and cover up has lead directly to the very thing they had hoped to avoid!!! Religion lags behind in reformation, it must have change forced upon it!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again you are absolutely correct! The religions of "authority" while motivated to preserve truths important to them in one age, end up petrifying those truths AND adding their own speculative interpretations about those truths, speculations which ALSO become part of the now diluted and compromised truth, which is further preserved in scripture, which is further edited and refined by still other adherents to "the only truth". So we end up with what we have in the collection of Bible books, a layer cake of preservation, revision, reinterpretation, additional revelation, preservation, revision, prophecy, revision, reinterpretation, editing etc. Its exactly what we should expect to find.

The inconsistency and evolution in the so called "scripture" add to their authenticity rather than detract in my opinion. There is evidence of real confliction in the authors between the old ways and the new with the audience in mind.

The church is afraid that if you discover inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the record, that it may lead one to loose faith, when in fact their pride and cover up has lead directly to the very thing they had hoped to avoid!!! Religion lags behind in reformation, it must have change forced upon it!

Given all that, and absent any objective means for reliably sorting truthful revelations from false ones, would you consider agnosticism to be an appropriate response?

 

[Colter]

Given all that, and absent any objective means for reliably sorting truthful revelations from false ones, would you consider agnosticism to be an appropriate response?

No, because God can be found in your heart, you don't need to go through an established religion. I know plenty of people in a 12 step program who found a God of their own understanding outside of religion. Or, you could continue to pick at the flaws of religion as an excuse not to establish a relationship with a God personal to you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, because God can be found in your heart, you don't need to go through an established religion. I know plenty of people in a 12 step program who found a God of their own understanding outside of religion. Or, you could continue to pick at the flaws of religion as an excuse not to establish a relationship with a God personal to you.

So you are encouraging everyone to look into their hearts to find "a God of their own understanding." Is there any stage in this process where people critically examine their understanding of God?

 

[Colter]

So you are encouraging everyone to look into their hearts to find "a God of their own understanding." Is there any stage in this process where people critically examine their understanding of God?

That's your choice, my experience has been that when a group of people are free to do this, when they get together they share similar experiences with this God of the heart. You will know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's your choice, my experience has been that when a group of people are free to do this, when they get together they share similar experiences with this God of the heart. You will know.

People who follow conventional religion also report similar insights coming "from the heart" when they gather together in communal prayer. Many also say that they know. Yet their shared understanding of God differs, often significantly, from the shared understanding of people of a different religion who also report divine insights manifesting in the heart. Once again, given the lack of an objective means for determining which understanding "from the heart" is genuinely divine, why wouldn't agnosticism be an appropriate response?

 

[Colter]

People who follow conventional religion also report similar insights coming "from the heart" when they gather together in communal prayer. Many also say that they know. Yet their shared understanding of God differs, often significantly, from the shared understanding of people of a different religion who also report divine insights manifesting in the heart. Once again, given the lack of an objective means for determining which understanding "from the heart" is genuinely divine, why wouldn't agnosticism be an appropriate response?

You are drifting back into the safe, neutral harbor of rationalism. But it's not that your question doesn't again have merit, but I would remind you that religions differ in interpretation (and yes, then they get arrogant and tell the others that their doctrine is the only right way). Take 10 people to the museum to see a certain work of art, each one will differ in their definition of it. By comparison you might say that's proof that the art does not exist and you wont go see it until everyone has the identical subjective experience with it.

Why is this? Again, its short and says it better than I can reword it so:

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955​

 

[Davian]

Why would you think Divine Revelation would be a trusted source "only for information that cannot be verified"? Other Revelation certainly is not.

How would I verify such information?