[Polpolion]

Same applies to God - science can't disprove him either.

Logical method can, though - you just need to ask yourself which is bigger, universe (by definition "everything that is") or God?

If God exists, he is by definition part of the universe which contains "everything there is". That means that if God is an individual entity in the Universe, logically it follows that the universe itself is mightier, bigger and awesomer than God, which kinda puts this God being on the same line with us, a sentient being in the universe.

What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.

Yes it can. It's like trying to eat a cake with a fork and knife.

If you can't tell, it's a fallacy.

[TrashMan]

What ever gave you this silly idea? You can't prove or disprove God with logic.
It's like trying to contain a ocean within a tea spoon. It just doesn't work.

You misunderstood me.

I was not exactly disproving the existence of God. I was simply showing that logically, a personal God entity is by definition smaller than the Universe (which contains everything there is) and therefore a personal God, an entity, is not the mightiest thing there is but instead simply an inhabitant of the universe.

The only way God could be on the top of things, so to speak, is to her being the Universe directly, at the same time consisting of and containing the whole universe. That of course leads to the question, "does Universe have a single, combined consciousness or not" - and THAT is the real question you should be asking, instead of "is there God or not". As I've stated before, I do not believe that the Universe has any ruling common consciousness and thus speaking of her as God is a bit misleading, but as I do believe in scientific method, I cannot entirely reject the concept since science doesn't disprove things. However, even if she does have a consciousness, then I am part of forming that consciousness just as you and the dirt and the algae and the nuclear bombs and black holes and it's a bit irrelevant to be considering what an afterlife would be - we would be part of Universe just as we are now, just without our individual consciousness any longer.

And by the way when I speak of Universe I literally mean "all there is". If we live in a multiverse, all worlds still belong to the Universe. If God exists outside our "universe" (without capital U), and even if he created our verse, he would still be part of Universe if he has any connection to our universe at all (and if he doesn't the question is moot anyway since what doesn't have any effect on our universe can with good reason be said not to exist).

Besides, since logic is by definition the study of truth and if God is the truth as you have claimed, then therefore God is just as subject to logic as you and I... oh wait, scratch that, you're not a subject to logic.

Logic transcends the limits of human mind and stays just as valid no matter what the entity performing it is. Same with mathematics and, fundamentally, natural sciences.

Insulting me with get you nowhere...even within a pun.

In this you are wrong. Prove to me that logic can be used to analyze or describe God.

If God is above logic then how can you use logic to describe him? Makes sense that He can be above logic if he's above physical laws, doesn't it?
You can't even prove that logic applies to the whole universe (universe as in ALL that is, not universe as in the observable world...in this case that would also include the supernatural things)

[Mobius]

Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?

Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?

[NGTM-1R]

Okay, you can argue he operates on physical laws we do not yet understand, but at the point you claim God is not subject to logic at all you cease to have any standing in the argument, because you're basically claiming you don't have an argument or evidence.

[Turambar]

Trashman just wants to keep on believing in something that he has no reason to believe. 

[Rhymes]

So why do you have a problem with it?

The way I see it, people can think whatever they want to, until they force their way of thinking on someone else.  THEN it's a problem.

[TrashMan]

Trashman just wants to keep on believing in something that he has no reason to believe. 

I have my reasons to believe.
If you don't believe than that's your problem, not mine.

What I do not like is people who constantly try to constrain God and present him like just another being in the universe. If he was jsut a super-powerfull being and nothing else, then I wouldn't call him God, now would I?

Okay, you can argue he operates on physical laws we do not yet understand, but at the point you claim God is not subject to logic at all you cease to have any standing in the argument, because you're basically claiming you don't have an argument or evidence.

No. God being unexplanable and beyond understanding is an argument in itself.
It doesn't matter how much logic you use if akk of your premises are false. You'll never get to right conclusion anyway.

[Herra Tohtori]

Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?

Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.

By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.

Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?

No references, just personal thoughts. Despite my tendency to value secular philosophy over religious dogmas I have actually thought of these things quite a bit...


Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.

Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...

Everything that exists is subject to logic, and claims to contrary are quite... surreal.


Rhymes_With_PSYCHO: I generally don't have problems with whatever people believe. It's their business. But when it starts to dictate their actions that affect other people, it becomes an issue, I agree with that. On my real life I generally keep my opinions to myself unless asked to join a conversation regarding them. I know a lot of people who I would describe as religious, and I get along with them perfectly fine.

In fact, personal beliefs don't annoy me much at all in themselves. It's religions and the attached dogma and authorital pseudofacts that make me want to facepalm when ever I come across them. People taking things for granted just because they are told to them by authority figures is a lot worse problem than people who figure their own opinions out, no matter what the conclusion is, because drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it. These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.

Even though I don't have faith in any specific divine being(s), it would be incorrect to say that I disbelieve in God (as in claim that God doesn't exist at any possible level at all); the simple fact that I prefer secular philosophy and scientific method to other views of world means that it is impossible for me to outright deny the existence of God. However I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions. No matter how big or old or supposedly documented a religion is, they are all organizations maintained by people, and thus their philosophies and truths are susceptible to people that maintain them (even though all of them claim to be the divine truth), and I do not want other people to dictate what I should believe in. What I do believe in is that the Universe exists and I'm part of it, and I can't really know what else exists beyond observable facts. What I can know is what I can interact with and observe, and by all meaningful criteria, that is what reality consists of. If there's something else, I will either find out some day or not, but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way (like dragon fire or God).


TrashMan: What exactly is it that God is to you then apart from a super-powerful being?

And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree. To me it feels much more like an authoritative smoke screen to assure that you don't need to know, just follow the drill and everything will be fine.

* Herra Tohtori does the Jedi Mind trick

"You don't need to think about God logically. These are not the arguments you are looking for. Move along."

[Polpolion]

No. God being unexplanable and beyond understanding is an argument in itself.
It doesn't matter how much logic you use if akk of your premises are false. You'll never get to right conclusion anyway.

Explain the methods you have used to come to this conclusion.

[Mobius]

Why are you giving for sure that he exists in the first place? What's the point in basing a discussion on this?

Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.

By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.

Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with

Also, where did you get all those references to that "Universe compared to God" thing?

No references, just personal thoughts. Despite my tendency to value secular philosophy over religious dogmas I have actually thought of these things quite a bit...


Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.

Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...

Everything that exists is subject to logic, and claims to contrary are quite... surreal.

I'd love to read the most logical comments, ever...like:

1) Why the hell God, the Christian/Jew/Muslim God, exists while the others don't? Why many other religions are simply pointed out as "Mythology"?

2) Isn't a lot more logical to believe that gods and religions were all but invented by mankind for obvious self-esteem purposes?

3) Where was God when his beloved population was being decimated by Nazists back in the 40s?

4) Where was God when his beloved Church of Rome became a corrupted entity?

5) Where is God now? Why don't we have any proofs?

6) Why did God change after the birth of Jesus? For the Jews, God was both good and evil(he oftentimes sentenced the infedels). Suddenly, he(it?) became good and a new entity, the Devil, appeared. How do you explain this? God has changed? And who changed him?

[Scotty]

Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.

By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.

I assume the Mount Doom you reference is from Tolkein?  Why not use some other source.  (Hey, let's get into an argument about this too.  )

Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.

Why?

Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...

God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.

Everything that exists is subject to logic,

The next time someone falls in love (dang, that's cliched)  tell them that.  It'll fix everything </sarcasm>

drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it.
These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.

So, you are suspicious of religion because some people who may be a part of that could be drones?    If so, why aren't you suspicious of life in general?  They have drones there too.

I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.

To each his own, in this case.  To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>.  Speaking of which, the movie of the same name () pretty much sums that up.

And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree.

He is, or we wouln't gigantic arguments like this.  Eventually we would settle on an explanation, but that will never happen, ergo, unexplainable.  

but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way

Like evolution?    Interesting middle ground you found there.

What I do not like is people who constantly try to constrain God and present him like just another being in the universe.

I feel a need to interject myself into this little tidbit.  God isn't in the universe.  He is greater than the universe.  Our description of universe (to use your definition:  all that is)  is in error.  You have broached that interpretation, and I am sorry to say that it is, in this instance wrong.  

[Herra Tohtori]

Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with

Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.

Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.

The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)

Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.

Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.

Yeah, it's pretty much like discussing how hot dragon fire can be.

By the way based on the best literary sources (which are of course facts in themselves), it is less hot than the lava in the Orodruin mountain, though exact physical temperatures remain to be a mystery. Since the temperature of lava generally is between 700 and 1200 centigrades, it is reasonable to assume that the fires of Mount Doom were not too much hotter than that, so within reasonable margins of error I would say that dragon fire at it's hottest (as demonstrated by Ancalagon the Black) is less than 1500 degrees Celcius in temperature.

I assume the Mount Doom you reference is from Tolkein?  Why not use some other source.  (Hey, let's get into an argument about this too.  )

Yes indeed this information comes from a trustworthy and hallow source. At least, as trustworthy as books come. This is an old argument of mine, if a group of people that didn't know that Lord of the Rings and associated legendarium are works of art rather than holy books, how could they tell that Silmarillion was not a basis for a religion and Bible or Quaran was?

Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.

Why?

Because:

Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...

God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.

So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.

Everything that exists is subject to logic,

The next time someone falls in love (dang, that's cliched)  tell them that.  It'll fix everything </sarcasm>

Did you misunderstand me by purpose or by accident?

Illogical actions are not uncommon, yet the reality doesn't care about them. Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod, and equally logical is that if the shooter is caught they go to jail. That doesn't mean that people always think logically or act logically, but their actions always have logical consequences.

Very much similarly, everything that hypothetic God does has logical consequences. God might or might not have logical reasons for them, though.

The question is, what exactly is it that makes God "more than logical"...

drones are far too easy to impress on doing something stupid like killing yourself along with a bunch of people caught in the explosion, because God wants it.
These drones, faithful automatons, are what make me very suspicious of religions and other indoctrinative organizations like cults of personality.

So, you are suspicious of religion because some people who may be a part of that could be drones?    If so, why aren't you suspicious of life in general?  They have drones there too.

I believe I mentioned cults of personality, which don't need to have anything to do with religions. Same goes with every one-party state and other misuses of authority, so yes, I don't really trust organized truth too much. Be it of religious or mundane nature.

I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.

To each his own, in this case.  To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>.  Speaking of which, the movie of the same name () pretty much sums that up.

Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?

And God being unexplainable and beyond understanding as an argument...? I'm inclined to disagree.

He is, or we wouln't gigantic arguments like this.  Eventually we would settle on an explanation, but that will never happen, ergo, unexplainable.  

If he's unexplainable, what is his function?

I mean, if you can accept something being unknown, surely it would be easier to accept the idea of universe becoming into existence on it's own, out of nothing, rather than the idea of God becoming into existence out of nothing?

Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?

but meanwhile I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way

Like evolution?    Interesting middle ground you found there.

Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.

Generally, you could also translate what I said as "supernatural does not exist" because everything that exists is part of nature (or universe), including any divine forces like God. If he exists, he is part of everything that exists, right?

(...) God isn't in the universe.  He is greater than the universe.  Our description of universe (to use your definition:  all that is)  is in error.  You have broached that interpretation, and I am sorry to say that it is, in this instance wrong.  

Going into etymology: Universe has it's roots in Latin, and it means "the whole world", key word being "whole". On a breakdown, it's derived from Latin word "unu" (one) and "'vertere" (to turn), and together they mean "One World" or the entirety of existence.

Mincing words doesn't really help here because you can just as well substitute universe with multiverse, but on it's very basic meaning, universe really means everything that there is. So again logically, if God exists (ie. has any connection on the space-time continuum we happen to live in), he is one part of everything that exists.

And if you say that God is not belong to the Group of Things That Exist, you are basically saying that he doesn't exist...

[Angelus]

Enlighten me about the fire of Gothmog (the first), a typical Valarauko and a standard Uruloki, then. I'm also interested on what you can come out with

Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.
Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.

The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)

Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.

Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.

Finally something interesting in this thread, 'cause religious discussions are SO boring, IMO.
Let's hijack this thread and go on a journey to middle earth...

[Scotty]

/hijack fail

Also, if God is beyond logic it means that the good and bad of God are not what humans can understand, and true and false of God are not the same as truth and false are to humans, which makes even less sense than the concept of personal God itself, because it basically - like NGTM-1R said - dissolves any kind of basis for discussion and argumentation about God's existence and nature.

Why?

Because:

Not to mention that according to religions God is usually supposed to reward good and punish for bad deeds at one level or another, so if God is not logical entity, that kinda removes the basis for that too...

God isn't an illogical entity, rather He is MORE than logic, and logic in and of itself cannot describe him.

So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.

Because, true to the definition of alien (In this case being "Dissimilar" courtesy The Free Dictionary) God is alien.  He is not human.  What I was trying to say is that any logic we apply to God falls short of the mark, that nothing we say can fully or completely describe even a portion of him, so trying to is an effort in futility.  It's not so much an argument for His existence as it is the best of an explanation for His will.

Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod

 

Accident.

Unless bullet jams in the weapon  .  (Just poking fun, no argument)

I can say with absolute certainty that I do not believe in religions.

To each his own, in this case.  To be honest, the faith is needed, not the attached dogma </NOT sarcasm>.  Speaking of which, the movie of the same name ( ) pretty much sums that up.

Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?

I apologize, I was referring to my own personal belief about what religion needs.  The dogma is unnecessary crap, but the faith is cruicial to a religion.  If you watch the movie Dogma, you'll understand.

Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?

And surely no life at all is less complex than the organisms evolution so readily explains.  Same principle.  People are so ready to believe that such complex life rose from nothing, but not so willing to accept the same thing about God, provided He wasn't always there.

Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.

But you cannot interact with it.  Ergo, you don't believe in it, going on with your earlier statemtent.

Mincing words doesn't really help here because you can just as well substitute universe with multiverse, but on it's very basic meaning, universe really means everything that there is.  So again logically, if God exists (ie. has any connection on the space-time continuum we happen to live in), he is one part of everything that exists.

And if you say that God is not belong to the Group of Things That Exist, you are basically saying that he doesn't exist... 

Once again, logic falls short of the mark when trying to deduce or explain who, what, or why God is.  I'm saying that you're usage of the word universe is in error.  God created everything.  He is not part of the universe the same way the the person who invents a new piece of equipment is not part of that equipment.

He does exist, but you are either unable or refusing to understand how he exists.

EDIT:  had to change a lot of quote messups on my part.

I love these kinds of arguments.

[karajorma]

Go ahead and prove it wrong then.

You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.

[TrashMan]

Go ahead and prove it wrong then.

You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.

No claim I made is redicolous.

If your mind cannot grasp it's simplicity, well...nothing I can do about it.

[karajorma]

You've made the ridiculous claim that intelligence couldn't have evolved. Now prove it.

I don't need to prove my view as I can simply point to the mass of scientific literature on the subject. You have no scientific evidence. So prove it.

I don't have to prove you wrong Trashman. That's not how science works. You have to prove your hypothesis is right.

[Polpolion]

Go ahead and prove it wrong then.

You've made the ridiculous claim. Go ahead and prove it right.

No claim I made is redicolous.

If your mind cannot grasp it's simplicity, well...nothing I can do about it.

lol

[Snail]

Well Gothmog was more powerful than Sauron ever. Both were maia, Gothmog was an enforcer and Sauron was the strategist in Melkor's posse. Sauron the Witch just happened to be better at surviving than Gothmog and thus ended up as the most powerful minion of Melkor after the valar had closed their evil brethren outside of the Middle-earth's level of existence, and proceeded to create his own institution of evil. I'm quite certain that if he had wanted, he could've produced fire hotter than both Ancalagon and Mount Doom (which was assumedly boosted by Sauron's influence), but on the other hand, fire is just one aspect of Balrogs, or the physical form these spirits in Melkor's service chose to take. They might have chosen not to use fire that hot.

Unfortunately there is very little mentions of the actual abilities of Balrogs. The most known one encountered in the Third age in Moria was probably not nearly on the same power level as Gothmog, but whether or not the balrogs' abilities are limited by power of the spirit or by the chosen form remains unknown. If the latter is the case, then the temperatures demonstrated by Durin's Bane would be about the same as Gothmog would have produced, within reasonable error bars of course. Unfortunately, again, we have limited information on the temperatures involved in the encounter at the Bridge of Khazad-Dum; the only direct contact was with another maia that in addition wielded Narya, the Ring of Fire, so that's not really reliable source of information.

The reactions of the rest of the fellowship would be more useful, but there's no direct contact here so we need to simply estimate the upper limit for Durin's Bane's temperature. It's obvious that the Balrog's temperature caused the fellowship some discomfort (Olorín himself was sweating despite the Ring of Power and his own strength) but they didn't apparently get burns and definitely weren't incinerated by the heat, so we can establish some upper limits to the fire of that particular Balrog there: Mere thermal radiation from lava flows can ignite buildings from several metres without touching them, depending on wind conditions. Even lesser temperature would definitely cause some burns to exposed skin, and the Balrog's physical size is most likely big enough to cause problems like this. My estimation would be that the distance between the Balrog and the Fellowship was at most a couple dozen metres. If the Balrog's fire was hotter than dragonfire or Mount Doom's lava, the fellowship would have likely suffered at least first degree burns on their faces and attempts to save Gandalf with the Balrog dangling from his foot would have been very much discouraged by the thermal radiation (just try how close you can go to a burning house if you ever get the chance...)

Based on this, the balrog in Moria probably had surface temperature far less than thousand degrees Celcius. Possibly something akin to a bonfire would be more realistic, although another approach - spectrum analysis - would suggest that the fires that the balrog was engulfed in, being dull red in colour, was about 700 degrees Celcius... but of course that is assuming that the visible flames were carbon particles and not some other substance.

Of course that is based on the Balrog's appearance in the movies, which is not really canon information.

Someone needs a hug.

[Herra Tohtori]

/hijack fail

Awww.

So why do religions try and present a lot of things that God wants from us if he is that alien to us? The argument that God is so mysterious that our terms and logic can not handle it pulls the carpet under any religion in my eyes, so I can't really fathom how that is a good argument for God's existence, much less validity of any religion.

Because, true to the definition of alien (In this case being "Dissimilar" courtesy The Free Dictionary) God is alien.  He is not human.  What I was trying to say is that any logic we apply to God falls short of the mark, that nothing we say can fully or completely describe even a portion of him, so trying to is an effort in futility.  It's not so much an argument for His existence as it is the best of an explanation for His will.

Then why is faith in him necessary?

Based on all this we can't know anything about God, including his existence, motives and methods. We can't know what God, should he exist, wants or needs (what would an almighty being need from us anyway). So why would God need or want our faith in him? And why would he use that faith as any kind of criteria for salvation? I don't need to understand God's logic to say that from my point of view this kind of practice (as preached by almost every religion to be a fact and truth) sucks in celestial scale.

In fact he could very well affect people without existing. And that would be the only thing where faith is required; the create "God" that affects people's decisions - but does the influence come from God or the preachers, that is the question... In a way, religions create their deities in metaphorical sense, since I don't really doubt the sincerity of some people's experiences but rather the objectivity of those experiences. Like a well known entertainer said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Universe works logically; pulling the trigger has a logical conclusion that the bullet is propelled out of the weapon through the head of some poor sod

 

Accident.

Unless bullet jams in the weapon  .  (Just poking fun, no argument)

Yeah, well. My point was that physically, universe works logically. Complex systems can generate a level of seemingly illogical decisions and actions, but only from the subjective viewpoint of those complex systems; the natural constants and laws of nature still stay solid and those are what in the end decide what consequences are caused by any action.

Why exactly is faith needed then? And faith on what exactly? Odin? Amon-Ra? Or faith on yourself, or faith on the people close to you?

I apologize, I was referring to my own personal belief about what religion needs.  The dogma is unnecessary crap, but the faith is cruicial to a religion.  If you watch the movie Dogma, you'll understand.

If I have time I might check that movie out at some point...

The point is, I can't really elevate any religion over another, thus I view them all equally inaccurate. Including the tenets that faith of any kind is necessary. Religions claim so. I haven't seen or heard God claiming that faith is necessary. Although believing that the Universe exists makes sense in a fundamental manner like Mr. Cartesius took note of, "Cogito, ergo sum".

Of course, I interpret this in the following way; I observe something, so obviously something exist; let's call everything that exists "Universe".

Surely universe (without consciousness) is less complex than God (with consciousness)?

And surely no life at all is less complex than the organisms evolution so readily explains.  Same principle.  People are so ready to believe that such complex life rose from nothing, but not so willing to accept the same thing about God, provided He wasn't always there.

Specifically, evolution has been confirmed to happen in many occasions.

But you cannot interact with it.  Ergo, you don't believe in it, going on with your earlier statemtent.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis doesn't have the problem of something emerging from nothing, which is a problem that plagues all hypotheses for Universe's birth. Both the Big Bang and God hypothesis are equally problematic in this sense, but at that point Ocham's Razor steps in and says that it's far less likely for a conscious being of infinite power to pop into existence out of nothing, than a finite non-conscious blob of energy and mass experiencing the same. Abiogenesis as a hypothesis of origin of life simply states that it is possible that in suitable conditions, molecules capable of reproducing themselves might have ended up in cellular structures and adapted so that the reproduction process would include the cellular structures themselves, and then it's just evolution from that point on.

What comes to my statement about interacting, I quote myself:

I'm not gonna believe in something I can't have any interaction with, or something I can't observe in any way

OR != AND

Interaction is just one criterium. If I can observe something, it is an equally good reason to believe it. And I can definitely observe evolution in many ways, including but not excluded to:

-results of selective breeding
-examples on nature (lizard populations on islands changing their fenotype according to the conditions in surprisingly short timeframe)
-research on species with very short generations (fruit flies, bacteria)
-genetic research in general
-rat populations developing immunity to poisons
-lactose tolerance on humans (most of world's population is still lactose-intolerantic but it's a beneficial mutation so it's spreading)
-HIV-immunity on human population as a likely result for past epidemics of virae that used same methods of entering the cell as HI-virus uses
-fossil records
-not last nor least: the fact that sexual reproduction is preferred by almost all multicellular organisms in known existence, and occasionally practiced by single-cell organisms as well.

Populations that reproduce asexually tend to be a lot slower in adapting to changes and thus, apart from the fast-reproducing bacteria, tend to die out and thus there is a selective pressure for species to reproduce sexually.

There are other ways I can observe the effects of evolution on species, but of course as a specimen I can't have direct interaction with evolution except making babies or not making babies. Doesn't diminish the validity or accuracy of the theory.

Examples of observed cases of speciation are fewer, but there are those as well. Although the definition of "species" tends to be a bit fuzzy as well.

Once again, logic falls short of the mark when trying to deduce or explain who, what, or why God is.  I'm saying that you're usage of the word universe is in error.  God created everything.  He is not part of the universe the same way the the person who invents a new piece of equipment is not part of that equipment.

Doesn't matter. If god exists, he exists. Therefore he is part of "everything that exists". This is very simple application of set theory.

Let's name the set "Everything" as "E", World as we observe it as "W" and God as he might or might not be, "G".

In this case, there are four possibilities on how the reality could be configured:



1: God exists completely separate from World. Both exist, though, so they belong to "Everything that exists"-set. This is pretty uninteresting though, since even though God might have created the world he has no connection to World in this reality configuration and religions are thus plenty wrong, regardless of the origins of the universe.

2: God exists and has a connection to the World which he might or might not have created. This is, I think, the configuration that many people assume to be true consciously or inconsciously. Basically in this model, God has connection to the World, but both sets still belong to the superset of Existence (E).

3: This is probably the most controversial and in fact you could probably drop the "W" out of the set list and simply explain it as God who exists inside World (or inside Everything) as an independent entity. Of course, this puts God hierarchically on the same level as every other conscious entity that exists in the Universe (Everything), even though God might have created a few planets or species as a playground in this particular reality configuration. Note that there's really nothing in religions that would contradict this possibility; there's nothing being said in the Bible for example about creating Universe, just stuff that exists in it (earth, sky, stars on the sky, sea, sun, solar system...). Genesis doesn't in fact say that God created the Universe's space-time continuum. God might've come to existence after universe.

EDIT: In fact the Hebrew version of Genesis seems to support this kind of configuration as it literally translates as "In (a) beginning filled God the heavens and the earth." Even though other translations interpret this as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." A small difference in meaning, but since the second verse literally says "The earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters" It lends some credibility to the claim that God simply filled or organized the existence rather than created it.

But I don't think there's any need to get further into any specific branch of theology... Just a little sample that not everything might be as it seems.

4. This is another controversial reality configuration. In this example, the world as we observe it is part of God but God is bigger than Universe. Of course, similar to the set number three, some simplification could be possible in this model - you could replace G with E or E with G as you like, making it so that God == Everything and World is part of God or Everything, whichever configuration you like better.


Of course, there is fifth way but it is so simply that I'm just going to write it here without a picture:

E==W==G

This reality configuration is, of course, the simplest of these possibilities and lets you drop two letters of your choice. You can call the existence of everything as "God", "Universe", "World" or simply "Everything" and it will have the fundamentally same meaning no matter what your specific beliefs are.

Of course, it does not answer to the question "Does Universe have a consciousness of it's own?" but the point is, it doesn't need to answer that question either. If there is such consciousness, we might or might not find out after dying - with luck our consciousness would merge to that consciousness, but if not, vanishing into nonexistence is not exactly painful or scary idea to me either.

This configuration is an elegant solution to the problem of God and existence of universe in itself. It is also simplest of available solutions and thus passes Ocham's razor. No need to assume more than you need, so to speak...

He does exist, but you are either unable or refusing to understand how he exists.

And neither can you. In fact since it's impossible for a human to understand God if what you say is valid, then you can't know that he exists either. Even if God exists, you can not be sure he exists or how, much less what exactly he wants of us, if anything at all.

I love these kinds of arguments.

They are definitely entertaining...