I just can't get over it...

Originally posted by Acemaster
I'll cut up your post and reply to it bit by bit.

"Religion is there for people to hide behind. That's why it is so popular."

No. According to the Thorndike-Barnhart Intermediate Dictionary, Religion means:"1. belief in and worship of God or gods; 2. a particular system of faith or worship." That's why it's so popular. Many people believe in definiti ...[text shortened]... on so you can believe exactly like you want to, go right ahead.

(I will answer your responses using brackets)

"Religion is there for people to hide behind. That's why it is so popular."

No. According to the Thorndike-Barnhart Intermediate Dictionary, Religion means:"1. belief in and worship of God or gods; 2. a particular system of faith or worship." That's why it's so popular. Many people believe in definition 1. Many people, like you, believe in definition 2.

(It's not an issue of definition. I'm talking about the function religion has in people's lives. It must be nice to be told what you have to do, and sleep at night in the belief that you were a "good" person all day, trying to convert all those non-believers. You do your best. )


"I'm sick of religious people literally knocking on my door and telling me i have taken the easy way out."

Can you blame them? They're trying to get other people to believe in what they believe in. Don't you want to get other people to be agnostic?

(no, i don't really care what other people believe, and i certianly would never knock on their door to tell them to believe what i believe, so yes, i blame them.)

"It's hard being an agnostic, with all the moral dilemas it brings"

It's harder being a Christian. We are the ones who are called names like crazy, stupid, insane, retarded, idiotic, etc. We are the ones who people spit at. We are the ones who are criticized childishly for our beliefs. Do you realize that you are religious? You said it right here that you are agnostic. What is a moral dilema, exactly?

(I don't know what to say to this. Being called names? How old are you? Just ignore them, it's not so hard. Has somebody spat at you for being a christian? Where do you live? A strict muslem country? I doubt an agnostic spat at you. Sounds more like some religious nutter to me. A moral dilema is when you are not sure which decision to make, and have to use your own judgement rather than rely on religious teachings.i.e We can't be selfless all the time, but when should we be? and when should we be selfish?
Actually, i consider myself to be spiritual, and my mind is open and i don't focus on one belief system..so in a way i am religious)

"I couldn't believe in any God I've been told about because it's not really a choice. You either believe or you don't. You can't decide what to believe in, you just do or don't believe in it. You think "ah that must be true" or you think "that sounds ridiculous". You can't chose how you react, you just react."

Yeah, it's a choice. I'm not forced to believe in Christianity, I believe in it because I want to. I believe in it because it is what I believe to be true. I believe in it because I believe it's where the true God can be found. If you want to create your own religion so you can believe exactly like you want to, go right ahead.

(You believe in it because you want to and because you can. A lot of people cannot. In a way i have my own religion, and this is what people knocking on my door tell me is "the easy way out". I don't think it is easy, it is full of angst, dilema and guilt but hopefully interest, growth, adventure and some satisfaction and fulfillment. Maybe it's not so different to you.)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Brace yourself for a dose of Aquinas filtered through a gibbericordium.

As opposed to Buddha filtered through a gibbericordium?

Originally posted by Starrman
What on earth (or extra-terrestrial?) does metaphysically simple mean? Also, what has necessity to do with it?

[Metaphysically] simple (Lat. simplex; sem "one" + plac "fold; "without folds or pleats" ) - without parts

[Metaphysical] necessity - if it exists in one possible world, it exists in all possible worlds

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As opposed to Buddha filtered through a gibbericordium?

Two different musical traditions!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[Metaphysically] simple (Lat. simplex; sem "one" + plac "fold; "without folds or pleats" ) - without parts

[Metaphysical] necessity - if it exists in one possible world, it exists in all possible worlds

Clearly I understand the word simple...

What I don't understand is the implication of metaphysical simplicity (a notion which seems to me utterly ridiculous) in relation to aliens.

Ignoring this, your definition of necessity is bizarre and doesn't match any I have come across.

Originally posted by Starrman
Clearly I understand the word simple...

What I don't understand is the implication of metaphysical simplicity (a notion which seems to me utterly ridiculous) in relation to aliens.

Ignoring this, your definition of necessity is bizarre and doesn't match any I have come across.

What I don't understand is the implication of metaphysical simplicity ... in relation to aliens.

They aren't and God is - that's all.

EDIT: The original question being "How is that any different to god?"

your definition of necessity is bizarre and doesn't match any I have come across.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Necessity_and_possibility

Originally posted by Starrman
Ignoring this, your definition of necessity is bizarre and doesn't match any I have come across.

Let me try...he means that it's simpler to ascribe the fact of the universe to God than it is to aliens.

How's that, LH?

Originally posted by Acemaster
Yeah, it's a choice. I'm not forced to believe in Christianity, I believe in it because I want to. I believe in it because it is what I believe to be true. I believe in it because I believe it's where the true God can be found. If you want to create your own religion so you can believe exactly like you want to, go right ahead.

Surely you can see that your statement does not really make any sense at all? You believe something because you believe it and you chose to believe it?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Two different musical traditions!

More like (be)muse-ical traditions.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]What I don't understand is the implication of metaphysical simplicity ... in relation to aliens.

They aren't and God is - that's all.

EDIT: The original question being "How is that any different to god?"

your definition of necessity is bizarre and doesn't match any I have come across.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Necessity_and_possibility[/b]

Okay firstly, there's no 'if then' statement included in the definition of necessity. Something is necessarily true when it cannot be otherwise.

Secondly, how are aliens not god?

Secondly, how are aliens not god?[/b]

Originally posted by Starrman
Okay firstly, there's no 'if then' statement included in the definition of necessity. Something is necessarily true when it cannot be otherwise.

That's logical necessity you're talking about (something is true by definition or by analysis of the terms involved). It applies to the truth of propositions. I'm talking about metaphysical necessity. This applies to the existence/non-existence of beings or states of affairs.


Secondly, how are aliens not god?

That's what I explained earlier. God is ontologically simple; aliens are not. God is metaphysically necessary; aliens are not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]Okay firstly, there's no 'if then' statement included in the definition of necessity. Something is necessarily true when it cannot be otherwise.

That's logical necessity you're talking about (something is true by definition or by analysis of the terms involved). It applies to the truth of proposi ...[text shortened]... is ontologically simple; aliens are not. God is metaphysically necessary; aliens are not.[/b]

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any explanation of why or even if this is true. The parameters of god could be fulfilled by the nature of intelligent powerful aliens, how are they not god if they fulfil all the requirements? Also, how is it that god is metaphysically simple? It sounds like bumf and your lack of explanation suggests you don't understand it either.

Originally posted by Starrman
You keep saying that, but I have yet to see any explanation of why or even if this is true. The parameters of god could be fulfilled by the nature of intelligent powerful aliens, how are they not god if they fulfil all the requirements? Also, how is it that god is metaphysically simple? It sounds like bumf and your lack of explanation suggests you don't understand it either.

I'll answer the second question first:

Also, how is it that god is metaphysically simple?

It follows from the definition of 'God' as the First Cause. See the entire set of arguments at:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

The simplest one is this -- God as First Cause is uncaused. If God were composite, then there would have to be a preceding cause that caused all those parts to be brought together, in which case He would not be the First Cause.

The parameters of god could be fulfilled by the nature of intelligent powerful aliens, how are they not god if they fulfil all the requirements?

Because they can't fulfill all the requirements.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll answer the second question first:

[b]Also, how is it that god is metaphysically simple?

It follows from the definition of 'God' as the First Cause. See the entire set of arguments at:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

The simplest one is this -- God as First Cause is uncaused. If God were composite, then there would have to ...[text shortened]... if they fulfil all the requirements?[/b]

Because they can't fulfill all the requirements.[/b]

For starters, the first cause argument is baloney and Acquinas' version of the philosophy thereof begs so many questions he could have reduced it to 'God is first cause because he's god, he's god because he is the first cause'.

Secondly, why could they not fulfil all the requirements? The first cause argument can be diminished if we postulate a circular existence for example. It is my opinion that the transitive nature of human perception suggests a linear concept of time which encourages a desire for start and finish in all things; a desire which is unfounded and too often subconsciously assumed to be analytical. Aliens could have created everything billions of years ago, only to be born into that universe billions of years into our future.

Originally posted by Starrman
For starters, the first cause argument is baloney and Acquinas' version of the philosophy thereof begs so many questions he could have reduced it to 'God is first cause because he's god, he's god because he is the first cause'.

You're wrong. But instead of us getting into a "Did too"-"Did not" situation, why don't you actually substantiate the two claims you're making?

Secondly, why could they not fulfil all the requirements? The first cause argument can be diminished if we postulate a circular existence for example.

You don't have a problem with "circular existence" but you have a problem with circular reasoning?