Debate Mansion

   

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 67)

Post Reply New Post

Page 67 of 149

Aya.

IF-Dazzler

Aya.

Joined: 18 May 2012

Posts: 2715

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 6:52pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by Aya.

I argue with my parents too, BUT actions lead to consequences. For example, you disrespect your mom/dad & then a few days later or even after a few minutes, you get burnt/hurt, just like that. Like when you're cooking, etc.
There are parents out there who raise their hands on their kids & there are some who don't.
My dad told me that when he was young, he disrespected his mom so much that she prayed from the bottom of her heart to God right in front of him & said, "Even if a car runs you over, I won't say ouch." The next day, when he was climbing the mountains, he got burnt on both of his legs everywhere. The scars are still visible. 

You will be rewarded/punished for every atom of a deed you do in this life, whether or not you believe in Him. 

Where you go in the afterlife (heaven or hell) rests with God as he is most Merciful and most Forgiving and best in judging.


How is getting burned a or hurt a consequence of disrespecting parents? How does the action lead to the consequence? What is the logical flow? 

It doesn't exactly have to be getting burnt or hurt. Disrespecting your parents or even anyone else could lead to consequences. For example, people disrespecting you, whether done online or in person. What goes around comes around. If you bully a kid, do you seriously think you'll get away with that & won't face any consequences ? It could be anything. Getting extremely sick, people bullying you, etc.

Getting burned can be a result of ignoring safety or sheer accident. Could it be that because we are so fixated in our beliefs in consequences that we find strive to find causations in mere correlations? I've definitely disrespected parents and a lot of people in my life, but I've never ever faced any silly ramifications other than my own guilt upon further reflection.

And what if your parents do something that does not merit respect? If parents or elders or any human do something unethical or morally reproachable why should we pay respects when we should stand up and point that they are wrong? Secondly, if we are angry or hurt or upset, should we not be honest and express our true feelings. If we pretend and deceive are we not living a huge lie. Isn't dishonestly unethical as well. 

If someone disrespected you, it doesn't mean you should disrespect them too. 
If you want to voice out, then do it the right way. In a beautiful manner, not an ugly one.
If someone slapped me, I wouldn't slap them back. That would just lead us both to fighting. If I ignore them & just walk away, then there would be no problems. If someone cussed at me, I wouldn't cuss back at them. If I do, it would just make me look like one of them. 
Thus, I don't like to dirty my tongue. 
When people see you do good things, they want to do good things like you too.
I don't know about you thou. I am just speaking for myself. 

I do believe that we have free will and the masters of our lives. Our actions and choices in life do have an impact on the course of life and the outcomes. But it is not black and white or illogical or random. I think doing things because of God or a Book or a preacher is dangerous as it makes us put blinkers on and stop thinking for ourselves. Doing things for the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell is also selfish and attempting to game a system. The only reasonable way to act and live is think things through with our sense of morality and rationality, when we reason and come to conclusions.

Humans need guidance.  


Edited by Aya. - 04 October 2012 at 6:53pm

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 67)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20680

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 8:28pm | IP Logged
@ Aya

It appears that you are missing the gist of my posts.

I'm not saying one should not believe in God or worship. My contention is that faith should never be blind or unquestioned. It should always be tempered with some amount of rational thought or object.

Obviously people may kill in my name even if I didn't ask for it. But that is completely irrelevant and on another tangent. What I am trying to say is we do not know for certain beyond doubt what a God wants, that is why it is more prudent to rely on our intrinsic rationality and moral compass.

Why do you think a person kills in the name of God? Why do you think a person can claim to love God yet malign God's name? Why do you think a person can consider God merciful & benevolent but still be convinced that God wills it to slaughter people?

This happens because of blind faith. The person believes in God but also takes books or religious leaders literally. They never think for themselves. They will do anything if they think it is what God wills. They never stop to think that God would never want to cause harm or death. They blindly do what they assume to be God's will without giving second thought to morality or rationality within humanity.

So before stating anything to be what God wills and expects we ought to ask several questions as to why and ensure that we never place our faith in something that is inconsistent or harmful to humanity in the long run.

As for Karma, I think it is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts.

Of course actions lead to consequences. It is like Newton's third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Sometimes it is simple, if you place your hand in fire it will get burned. But when we throw human behavior and emotions in the mix, the situation gets much more complex.

A person disrespecting their parents can lead to a myriad of consequences depending on the situation. They will not all be necessarily bad. The parents may get angry and ground them. Thats a consequence. Or being human they may hurt the child by letting them down sometime. In some cases the child may have meant no disrespect by the parents misunderstood or overreacted. In some cases the parents may have done something despicable. The parents may realize this and in some way try to thank the child for doing the right thing.

This way what we do often has consequences. But God or a third party is not miraculously interfering or causing them. They occur because people around us observe what we do, they experience the impact of our actions. Consequently they make decisions about us, they react to what we do. Good, bad, mixed all sorts of consequences occur simply as a result of humans interacting with each other and being human.

That is why there is no hard and fast rule of behavior to never disrespect or obey without questioning. Nor can you game it by trying to guess what will be good and do it and avoid what is bad. You can't really guess or make a call on what others will think as good or bad or how they will react. The only thing we can do is try not to think about consequence and act in a manner which is sincere and honest to ourselves and do our best to think about what is moral and rational.

Bullies have bad endings not because God punishes bullies or wills it, but because people stand up to bullies and say "It gets better".

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13810

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 9:44pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by zorrro


[Zorrro] Could you hazard a guess as to what percentage? That would still leave out quite a huge area unexplored. Tongue

So, the creator likes to put gap between his creations? Let's design here, then go some light years to the north, then design again?


Originally posted by zorrro

say you design a wheel. Will the wheel fit all the vehicles out there? It is a design and yet with limitations, isnt it ? 

Because we create so many vehicles. That's why I said it would be understandable if other planets were filled with life too. But since we are alone in quite a larg chunk, why not make it habitable? If I designed only one vehicle for a country, I would only manufacture wheels that fit it.


Originally posted by zorrro

How do you know if the process of designing isnt still continuing  ?  LOL

Because if someone was designing, he would know the requirements at that point. Since we are evolving according to conditions, shows that there was no design.


Originally posted by zorrro

anything unknown is a mystery Tongue

But that doesn't stop people from claiming God does exist, does it?


Originally posted by zorrro

Thats going into infinite regress . Why not first try and know ourselves first. Just what am I ! Then think about who my creator is and then who the creator of Creator is Smile 

Yes. And unless one can solve that paradox or come up with an explanation that does not involve the paradox, you can't claim that God exists.


Originally posted by zorrro


 Can you suggest any Scientific Method about finding out who we are ( observable) We could later move on to the unobservables Tongue

What exactly do you mean by who we are? We are homo sapiens. We have a good understanding of our biology. The big mystery is that of consciousness. What is it?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Samraat_92

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13810

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:17pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

First of all, QM is still in infancy


Is this a joke?! Sounds hilarious to me. A mathematical model so spectacularly successful for it's precision, the closest that science has come to a fundamental description of the nature of reality, a branch of Physics which started revolutionizing the scientific world in the first decade of the 20th century the roots of whose study go back to the 17th and 18th century is in it's infancy to you?! Incredible!

Originally posted by Freethinker112

many things are faith based.


Which ones?!



OK, I should have worded that better. I meant the thing we are discussing in this thread, what exactly is reality, is currently not evident. We know the wave-function collapses when observed, but how or why is still not clear. The maths is there but how exactly that turns to reality is still speculation. That's what I meant by "faith". There are various school of thoughts with different interpretations. We don't have a concrete answer. Please don't quote parts because the whole sentence would have made context understandable even though the wordings were not quite good.

BTW, as I have already said, I am not much knowledgeable but you seem well read in QM. So, I would be indebted if you correct me as I will get to learn things. Smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe.

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13810

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

I know I am real and maybe you do too if you are real.


Describe "real" in scientific terms to me. Please provide as much detail as you can.

Please don't misquote me by taking just one sentence out of context. Your statement made me curious that maybe you are considering the idea of Solipsism. That's a purely philosophical standpoint not scientific and I was discussing it within that context. "Real" philosophically meant the statement "I think therefore I am".

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:37pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

I know I am real and maybe you do too if you are real.


Describe "real" in scientific terms to me. Please provide as much detail as you can.

Please don't misquote me by taking just one sentence out of context. Your statement made me curious that maybe you are considering the idea of Solipsism. That's a purely philosophical standpoint not scientific and I was discussing it within that context. "Real" philosophically meant the statement "I think therefore I am".


The "misquote" was not intentional. I was saving some real estate by not quoting the entire response.

Actually, if you consider the entire context within which I said that, you would notice that I was only talking about a forum such as Debate Mansion where one could theoretically debate with oneself without a real audience / real framework. Something like playing chess with oneself.

But the other aspect of it, namely solipsism, has a lot going for it too but perhaps we could postpone a discussion on it to another time / another place.



K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:39pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

BTW, as I have already said, I am not much knowledgeable but you seem well read in QM. So, I would be indebted if you correct me as I will get to learn things. Smile


[Off topic] That's a super attitude to have and you will go a long way if you possess that all your life.

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13810

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:47pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


1. Extrapolation implies that we are trying to estimate values outside a known data range. There is no unknown data range in this context. If you disagree, please let me know why.

2. The macroscopic properties of matter, be it solids, liquids or gasses, are completely depend on the microscopic particles ("atomic sized things" as you eloquently put it) composing it. If you disagree, please let me know why.

3. A wave function, described by Schrodinger's equations, is the most complete description you could give to a physical system be it moon or any other entity that you could think of. If you disagree please let me know why.

4. The moon's wave function is in a superposition of several different possible eignestates. If you disagree please let me know why.

5. The relation between the wave function and the underlying reality (ex: "spherical object reflecting light") is dependent on which interpretation (semantic explanation of mathematical equations as outlined by Schrodinger) of Quantum Mechanics one would want to go with. If you disagree please let me know why.

6. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you disagree please let me know why.

7. Per Copenhagen Interpretation, a wave function appears to collapse (one single possibility emerging from several different possibilities) only after an interaction with an observer. If you disagree please let me know why.

8. If there were no observers, there would be no collapse which means it is meaningless to ask anyone to pick one possibility out of several different possibilities.  If you disagree please let me know why.

Which is why I said, the answer to the question of what exists (existed) before an observation is made is fuzzy at best.

We could also discuss the other popular interpretation (Many worlds interpretation) but that would be more shocking than the Copenhagen interpretation, trust me.

To sum up, the math behind Quantum Mechanics is fool proof. The interpretation of what the math means is what is up for discussion.
 

Yes, of course we are discussing the interpretations, how exactly can we explain the reality. I am not questioning the math.

Some questions. Don't take it as some angry argument because I am reading this stuff to form response and am still trying to make sense of it. So, I may go on a wrong tangent. Smile

First, do you think "observer" has to be conscious? From what I read, the problem at macro scale is that particles are not in isolation. The particles interact with each other, and there are so many particles therefore so many interactions, which does not let the object go "fully in the superposition state".(I can't word it better, sorry. Smile) The interaction collapses the wave-function as if the object is observing itself. The idea is environmentally induced decoherence. It may help explain the classical reality of the macroscopic objects. Because the gravity doesn't disappear if we don't observe moon and it's orbit will keep in place if we observe it after many days or months. Feel free to correct me if I am getting it wrong. Smile

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 90

Summer3 719 31379 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm
By Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

monika. 94 4774 20 September 2011 at 11:49am
By epiphany.
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Summer3 10 844 12 May 2011 at 4:20am
By Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SolidSnake 71 4075 17 September 2010 at 1:42am
By _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

shalini1323 11 802 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm
By Vinzy

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.