What's Your Religion?

What's your religion?

  • Christian: Orthodox

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian: Catholic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian: Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Christian, but not really practicing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Judism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Judism: Orthodox

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Judism, but not really practicing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Islam

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Buddism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hinduism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Animism (Native Americans, Shintoism, etc.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (Small or New religion, like Scientology)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Agnosticism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Atheisism

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something, but not really practicing

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Status
Not open for further replies.
NB: This is a long post. It'll probably be out of date by the time it gets posted.

Well... aren't we a lot of scientific thinker-type empiracists?

So far as my religion, I'm broadly speaking Jewish, though of the Liberal persuasion which basically hold that, as has been mentioned, scripture is a lot of guidelines and can be on occasion ignored. And that God exists, fairly obviously.

So I most certainly believe in a God.

Just as a response to Rico's refusal to believe in a God that he can't see, I'd like to ask whether he'd believe in one even if he could see it? I know a certain philosopher by the name of David Hume stated that

A miracle may be accurately defined as a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.

He then went on to state that Miracles occur among barbarous and primitive peoples, that anyone who sees one has a vested interest in it being true (they might get made a saint or something), that miracles occur in all faiths (as do religious experiences) and can't all be right, and a few other criticisms I can't remember.

The thing is, our friend David Hume was also a devout atheist. He believed the world was governed by firm, irrefutable, natural laws (which of course, I doubt any of us quite believe, if only because science makes progress by disproving the established doctrine of its time). Had he witnessed a miracle, it is nearly certain that he would not have accepted it as miraculous, but instead searched for a cause using science to explain it. Had Hume experienced a divinity directly, he would most assuredly have tried to find reasons to explain his experience without reference to a divine. Despite claiming adamantly that he was an empiricist (seeing is believing).

There are also two parables which might be worth mentioning here. One's by a fellow called John Wisdom, and is the parable of the Gardener. The other I can't remember who wrote it, but is similar.

The Parable of the Gardener
Once, 2 men were walking through a forest, and they came to a clearing. In this clearing were some seeming signs of order - some aparrent flowerbeds, for example... a patch of lawn say. But also signs of chaos and disorder - weeds growing, perhaps a blackberry bush, maybe the lawn hasn't been trimmed for a long while.
"Friend" says one man to the other "clearly this is a garden of some fellow or other. Let us stay a while and try to meet him"
"Nay nay, there clearly is no gardener here" says the other "it is too disorderly".
So the two decide to set up camp, and wait a while. And after 2 months or 2 years or however long of waiting, the garden seems still fairly well kept, but there has been no sign of the gardener despite both men's constant vigilance.
The second says to the first "See? I am right, there is no gardener - let us begone and continue our journey!".
But the first replies "But of course you can't - clearly he is an invisible, undetactable, intangible gardener who does not want to meet us!"
The second is flustered by this. "How, then, can he exist?"
And the first replies "Because the garden is kept".

The Parable of the Island
Two men were in a boat, desperately rowing for an island having been kicked off their ship. Their crew had mutanied, and they were feeling a litle miserable. They eventually reach an island, and on it stands a factory, or an opera house, or something else which clearly needs intelligent input to build. One declares that the structure must have just come together out of happenstance - there is no necessary creator, because he doesn't believe in it. The other point out that this is stupid, and that factories don't just appear out of thin air.

Ok, so admittedly they're only passingly relevant, but nonetheless worth thinking about. The point of both is that whether you believe in God, its what you *believe* in that counts. If you believe in God then nothing will convince you otherwise. If you don't, then the contrary applies.

Oh, and just for some randomness... what do you mean you can't prove or disprove God (a posteriori, inductive, formed of synthetic statements).

1) The proof of God's nonexistance from repetition
God does not exist
God does not exist
God does not exist
Therefore: God does not exist

2) The disproof of God from magic sky men
God is a magic sky man
Everyone knows magic sky men do not exist
Therefore: God does not exist

There'll be more coming once I've been reminded of them. In the mean time, anyone else got a few good ones?
 
I believe in god but I am not a christian because of stigma I would be faced with if i was a christian.
I also disagree with some christian values.

I would consider myself to be a moralist.

People say there is no proff that God exists, but as there is no proof (good proof that is) that he doesn't exist i would not stop believing in a god that quickly..
and besides i have good anecdotal evidence that God exists!

by the way your posts are all so long I couldn't be bothered to read them... :p
 
People say there is no proff that God exists, but as there is no proof (good proof that is) that he doesn't exist i would not stop believing in a god that quickly..
and besides i have good anecdotal evidence that God exists!

by the way your posts are all so long I couldn't be bothered to read them...
Imo for something to exist you need proof for it to exist and you need no proof for it not to exist (eg I could say something does and you guys could all say it didnt but there is no evidence it doesent.)

Also I agree with the long posts... if its generally >5 lines im not gonna read :p
 
Proofs for God's Existence (open to debate, which I'm not going to do):

The Cosmological argument:
- Everything that exists is dependant on something else for existence
- The universe is made up of dependant things and therefore is dependant (or contingent, to use Aquinas' language) itself
- That which the universe is contingent upon for its existence is God, who exists necessarily (which IS a coherent possibility, but I'm not going into that now - by all means ask)

The Ontological Argument:
- God, were he to exist, would be "That than which nothing more perfect can be conceived"
- This being can exist either "in re" (really) or "in intellectu" (in the mind alone)
- Clearly it is more perfect to exist "in re" *and* "in intellectu" than merely in one or the other.
- Therefore God *has* to exist.

Just a couple of ideas (Aquinas and Anselm respectively)
 
Rico posted on Jul 21 2004 at 04:35 PM said:
unlucky posted on Jul 21 2004 at 03:28 PM said:
Most of the time praying i feel has a subconscious affect on how you see a bad situation which is all that really needs 2 happen.
This is exactly what I mean. If you need to be reassured by a non-existent entity you have problems. If you are just praying to a 'God' you don't think exists, but think 'oh well, it really helps me concentrate and get through the problem' you are abusing religion. You're meditating, not praying. Painting it with the same brush as Christianity only ends up promoting a religion for an benefit it isn't actually providing.
Well i do have various problems so this probably makes sense : 0 its all a bit jaded for me i guess i do believe in God but alot of people are pretty judgemental so i tend not to admit it that much out of all my friends only 2 of us go 2 church every week (group of 14) i'm also mentally retarded..................... and my views change all the time
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PinkSpider posted on Jul 21 2004 at 05:19 PM said:
Also I agree with the long posts... if its generally >5 lines im not gonna read :p
Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't be participating in a debate you make no effort to learn from.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tobriand posted on Jul 21 2004 at 05:41 PM said:
Proofs for God's Existence (open to debate, which I'm not going to do):

The Cosmological argument:
- Everything that exists is dependant on something else for existence
- The universe is made up of dependant things and therefore is dependant (or contingent, to use Aquinas' language) itself
- That which the universe is contingent upon for its existence is God, who exists necessarily (which IS a coherent possibility, but I'm not going into that now - by all means ask)

The Ontological Argument:
- God, were he to exist, would be "That than which nothing more perfect can be conceived"
- This being can exist either "in re" (really) or "in intellectu" (in the mind alone)
- Clearly it is more perfect to exist "in re" *and* "in intellectu" than merely in one or the other.
- Therefore God *has* to exist.

Just a couple of ideas (Aquinas and Anselm respectively)
What's God dependent on? Is this what you mean by 'existing neccessarily'? I think the 'who created God' argument has been done to death, myself. You could equally ask what made the Big Bang happen; there is either a First Cause or everything that existed has always existed, either can't really be explained further as it is beyond our understanding, or just because we weren't around several billions of years ago.

The second one makes no sense to me. Erm... basically the guy is saying 'gee it would sure be GREAT (perfect) if someone existed who was perfect both intellectually and physically! erm... so he has to exist!!'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tobriand posted on Jul 21 2004 at 05:41 PM said:
Proofs for God's Existence (open to debate, which I'm not going to do):

The Cosmological argument:
- Everything that exists is dependant on something else for existence
- The universe is made up of dependant things and therefore is dependant (or contingent, to use Aquinas' language) itself
- That which the universe is contingent upon for its existence is God, who exists necessarily (which IS a coherent possibility, but I'm not going into that now - by all means ask)

The Ontological Argument:
- God, were he to exist, would be "That than which nothing more perfect can be conceived"
- This being can exist either "in re" (really) or "in intellectu" (in the mind alone)
- Clearly it is more perfect to exist "in re" *and* "in intellectu" than merely in one or the other.
- Therefore God *has* to exist.

Just a couple of ideas (Aquinas and Anselm respectively)
Cosmological one: So... what does god depend on?
Ontological one basically says "If god exists, he exists." Or, to elongate it: "If god existed, he would have a quality that would enable me to say that he does exist because he has this quality." It's a loop.

EDIT: It seems rico beat me somewhat ;)

sebastian_insua: So.... prove it to me. And if you really succeeded in proving that god existed, you would have denied your faith.


OK, so here is a prove god does not exist. I made that one up myself and I call "Bullshit theory":
1. The bible claims to be true.
2. Several parts of the bible are obviously utter bullshit.
3. The bible's claim to be true must be incorrect.
4. The bible is bullshit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, so-called "necessary existance" is the conept that it is nonsensical to suggest that a certain thing doesn't exist - any first cause argument has their first cause as this else they don't work. This is true whether you're suggesting the universe supports everything in it (i.e. it is the non-contingent table that the pyramid of cards stands on) or whether God supports the Universe. The reason Aquinas gives for it is that the alternative (infinite regress of universe after universe after universe, or cause after cause after cause) is inconceivable and therefore impossible. Which I don't agree with, and nor does Hume (he asks why in one of his dialogues - you should probably give them a read, some of them are quite interesting).

However, if we consider infinite regress, with cause after cause etc., someone pointed out to me the other day that the mechanism by which that infinite regress occurs must be necessary in order for the string of events to go back ad infinitum - there must be some constant effectively, if only in how things regress. Which basically means that something being necessary isn't impossible - indeed it has to be, whether you stop or go on forever.

Still doesn't answer the question about whether you could stop at the universe acting like a Roman bridge for example, made up of lots of dependant causes but because they balance, being held together without another one outside of it, but it does allow for a necessary God. I don't have an answer for the bridge idea, btw. When it comes to arguments for and against God, I don't really mind how they turn out, I'm just interested in the arguments (not going to affect belief after all).

So far as the Ontological argument is concerned, it does make sense but you have to work your mind round it in the right way. Perhaps I mangled it a bit too much and half tried to stick with the original, which is a LOT more awkward to understand.

Perhaps it'd be better put thus:

- God is the most perfect being possible if he exists
- Existence is a perfection
- Therefore it is in God's *nature* to exist; he can't help but do so (which also raises lots of questions about God's nature, since surely an omnipotent deity would be able to cease existance)

There's also Plantinga's argument from infinite parallel universes:

- Given infinite parallel universes there must be a being that fulfils most of God's criteria in one of them, if all universes can be infinitely variable
- If such a being exists, then the most perfect version must do also
- And there must be one who can exist *across* parallel universes as well, given just how perfect you can get with infinite variation.

There's holes in both of them, of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument is what the Wiki says on the thing, though. Worth a read perhaps... if you can get over Anselm's bloody complex language.
 
I am really annoyed at school that they force christ on us, I mean, is'nt it a 'sin' to force people to do things? We are not slaves, those bastards.

In America, that's unconstitutional thankfully. But we still have God on the back of our money and in our National anthem. The question is, should we keep these things because of "tradition" (the main argument for keeping them) or expose them for the hypocrisy they truly are?

This is exactly what I mean. If you need to be reassured by a non-existent entity you have problems. If you are just praying to a 'God' you don't think exists, but think 'oh well, it really helps me concentrate and get through the problem' you are abusing religion. You're meditating, not praying. Painting it with the same brush as Christianity only ends up promoting a religion for an benefit it isn't actually providing.

Wishing is the same as asking your God to do something. Doesn't matter if it's Christianity or Hinduism, it's all the same in the logical terms. I would be honestly surprised if you've never wished for something to happen. This doesn't mean you believe in God, but it does mean you believe in some type of force beyond current science's understanding that can shape reality. This is the basic form of God - some type of "force" that can shape reality based on the wishing/praying/meditating/affirmations of the universe's inhabitants.

In fact, many "strong" atheists already have a belief. They have the belief that God doesn't exist. A belief is something formed without any conclusive evidence. There is no conclusive evidence that some reality-shaping force governing the universe does or does not exist. Non-weak atheists choose to believe that there is no such thing as a "God". While non-weak atheists do not believe in any supernatural forces, they are not following logic percisely as they are inserting a belief. Weak atheists concede that it cannot be conclusive proved either way at this time and have no supernatural beliefs. Agnostics may form beliefs beyond simple belief in some type of supernatural force. The difference between a strong Aethist and a weak Atheist and the Agnostic is that the weak Atheist and Agnostic are open to changes to our understanding of reality, while a strong Atheist isn't - since they don't percisely follow logic in their final conclusion. In this way, the strong Aethist is just as close-minded as those who don't believe in evolution JUST because it doesn't follow their version of the Bible.

The Cosmological argument:
- Everything that exists is dependant on something else for existence
- The universe is made up of dependant things and therefore is dependant (or contingent, to use Aquinas' language) itself
- That which the universe is contingent upon for its existence is God, who exists necessarily (which IS a coherent possibility, but I'm not going into that now - by all means ask)

This is pretty much my belief as an agnostic. When scientists theorized the formula for the Big Bang (the theorized beginning of the universe), they were asked what came before the Big Bang. Well by their calculations, nothing could come before the Big Bang. However, by what we understand of cause and effect, SOMETHING had to happen for the Big Bang to occur. But there was NOTHING in our current scope of reality before the Big Bang according to our current calculations. Therefore, whatever started the Big Bang must be beyond our current scope of reality. You'd be surprised how many scientists simply said, "Until we have a better answer, let's say God did it". It's been said that time is like a Mobius Strip. That means the end of time is the beginning of time. How the end of time is the beginning of time is beyond our current understanding of reality, because we cannot perceive anything beyond a linear time frame - we can only theorize, and rather shakily at that.

In fact, much of science is based on theory, and therefore much of it is open to debate. We may be living in an enlightened age of science, but really we don't know crap. Perhaps we do know 90% of everything in the universe, but perhaps we don't. We may never really know, as even the structure of mathmatics is debatable through Critical Reasoning. This is perhaps the most fundemental issue of Critical Reasoning, let me try explaining it...actually screw me explaining the issues, let someone else explain it:

Nothing is Impossible.

The arguments behind this claim are:
1. Anecdotal evidence from quantum uncertainty etc.
2. All logical disproofs have inherent uncertainty due to inductive basis of logical procedures.
3. All logical disproofs, if relating to reality, must originate from inductive and hence uncertain assumptions.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-2372

Now these people may or may not be credited logicians, but neither am I ;) Logic is one of those things where more people can provide their own stable arguments without a huge background like physics or computer science. Just because someone is a Philosophy professor specializing in critical reasoning doesn't mean their arguments are all valid, it just means there is a better chance their arguments are valid. I've seen far more Philosophy professors with fallacious arguments then Physics with invalid theories ;)
 
generalnmx posted on Jul 21 2004 at 07:19 PM said:
I am really annoyed at school that they force christ on us, I mean, is'nt it a 'sin' to force people to do things? We are not slaves, those bastards.

In America, that's unconstitutional thankfully. But we still have God on the back of our money and in our National anthem. The question is, should we keep these things because of "tradition" (the main argument for keeping them) or expose them for the hypocrisy they truly are?
Here we are taught Christian hymns and have to pray in assembly. While assemblies are optional if you're not Christian, people make a big fuss about it because you miss all the other announcements etc. So it's really quite biased against non-Christians, who usually end up going anyway and just ignoring the hymns and prayers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not even going to bother comprehending that quantum argument. Seems like the real issue has been abstracted so much that it can be distorted.

I think when people 'wish' but don't believe in God, it is just HOPE. They 'hope' for something to come true, or happen. Possibly the stigma attached to growing up in a predominantly Christian country makes them wish the same way I might say 'Oh God' without even caring about the meaning of those words. They do not look to a diety or unknown force to help them, because as you say they don't believe in one. It's just habit. Children wish upon stars for example - no mention of God there.
 
PinkSpider posted on Jul 21 2004 at 05:19 PM said:
People say there is no proff that God exists, but as there is no proof (good proof that is) that he doesn't exist i would not stop believing in a god that quickly..
and besides i have good anecdotal evidence that God exists!

by the way your posts are all so long I couldn't be bothered to read them...
Imo for something to exist you need proof for it to exist and you need no proof for it not to exist (eg I could say something does and you guys could all say it didnt but there is no evidence it doesent.)

Also I agree with the long posts... if its generally >5 lines im not gonna read :p
As an archaeologist, I know a nice little saying that applys in this context

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

In other words, just becasue we dont have any proof that a God exists, doesn't mean that there IS no God...

Like I said... open-minded.


@Pink

I'd read those +5 line posts - some of the best stuff happens there :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PinkSpider posted on Jul 20 2004 at 08:02 PM said:
kknd_cf posted on Jul 20 2004 at 09:00 PM said:
Sorry to be remarkable rude but i'm extremely against christianity. Reasons you ask well here we go............:

1. It's homophobic.
2. It's a religion based on "peace and love" yest the "God" of this insane religion happens to be the biggest mass muderer of all time, flooding the whole world because they weren't perfect for him. "Aww what a nice story and he gives us a rainbow so we don't give a shit awww"
3. "Thou shall not kill" but in the time of the crusades you were granted passage to heaven if you killed a Muslim. Yeah that's right.... yeah...
4. It's all bs that is made to make a nation stronger.
5. Most of the Bible (well the shitty miracles) has contradicts science at every given opportunity)
6. The usual one: Why do no miracles happen today and why doesn't jesus's spirit appear and why doesn't god give us the thumbs up every now and again.
7. The Bible is full of sexist comments.
8. The best one: IT'S A LOAD OF BS THAT CONTRADICTS ITSELF MANY A GOOD TIME.

That's why I'm an athiest and I can't understand how anyone can be taken in by the nice promises, commercialism and "niceness" of Chrisitanity.

Goodbye and Goodnight.
TBH I agree with some/ all of that ^_^.

If I where to choose a religion it would be Buddhism (sp?) but im not religious at all. I wish I was tho... no afterlife scares the shit out of me :(
I have to agree im pretty much an atheist i dnt beleive in god, i mean look at the world we live in ffs, also i dnt like the idea of some almighty person ruling over us somehow i mean life isnt and episode of big brother, i do respect the fact that people are christians and there is many cases of religion helping people through difficult times in their life, but as most it dont work for everyone i just dont feel there seems to be enough proof of god's existance for me to start worshipping plus i wudnt anyway, but i respect anyones beleifs in the forum if they do beleive in god but as i said it just dont work for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Axeman posted on Jul 21 2004 at 09:06 PM said:
As an archaeologist, I know a nice little saying that applys in this context

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

In other words, just becasue we dont have any proof that a God exists, doesn't mean that there IS no God...

Like I said... open-minded.
On the other hand I think there might have been a little something in the archaeological record if a flood had wiped out the entire population on earth bar one family...

Maybe Noah's wife is the mitochondrial Eve. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I believe in Darwin's theory, and we have evolved into a succesful species because of our want to do GOOD for others, and have thefefore been able to live very well in a community because of our unselfish intentions. Causing good relationships, sex, babies, evolution etc etc etc.
That is NOT Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is that species change because of natural selection (he never mentions the word "evolution" even once in The Origin of Species).
Natural Selection - Parent organisms pass on their characteristics to their offspring. Those whose characteristics best enable them to produce the most offspring are the ones who are more represented in the gene pool.

That's IT. Nothing there about "good intentions". Good intentions can indeed help the human race survive, but so can many other factors. Look at the mosquito; I doubt they have ANY good intentions, and yet there are a hella lot more of them than humans on this planet. ;)

This is pretty much my belief as an agnostic. When scientists theorized the formula for the Big Bang (the theorized beginning of the universe), they were asked what came before the Big Bang. Well by their calculations, nothing could come before the Big Bang.

etc.
If you knew your physics, you would know that this is not true. I really recommend that everybody visit this website that I linked to earlier; scroll down, it's a kind of FAQ for a lot of the arguments that have been made here...
As an archaeologist, I know a nice little saying that applys in this context

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

In other words, just because we dont have any proof that a God exists, doesn't mean that there IS no God...

Like I said... open-minded.
Nicely said, Axeman. :)
Another note; just because science does not currently have an explanation for something, it does not mean that no explanation exists. Take that finding-water-with-a-stick example that I talked about earlier; it was thought to be something supernatural for a long time, but scientists eventually found out how it worked.

P.S. You're an archaeologist, Axeman? Very cool. :p Where do you work?
 
thebluenewt posted on Jul 21 2004 at 11:04 PM said:
Axeman posted on Jul 21 2004 at 09:06 PM said:
As an archaeologist, I know a nice little saying that applys in this context

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

In other words, just becasue we dont have any proof that a God exists, doesn't mean that there IS no God...

Like I said... open-minded.
On the other hand I think there might have been a little something in the archaeological record if a flood had wiped out the entire population on earth bar one family...

Maybe Noah's wife is the mitochondrial Eve. :p
Bah, didn't I answer this already? :p

It didn't happen; there is no evidence to support it (apart from that piece of wood on a mountain... I don't really know that much about that TBH), and there is plenty of evidence against it and a lot of other things in the Old Testament.

For the record, I don't think that just because the Bible has some falsehoods that therefore nothing else in it can be true. Some things that are in it have already been proven to be true (ex. accounts on the Assyrians), and for some others there is no evidence either way.

As far as I see it, it's a bit like the Icelandic Sagas (lots of stuff about trolls and giants and things, but also at times an accurate account of the early history of Iceland).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As an archaeologist, I know a nice little saying that applys in this context

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

In other words, just becasue we dont have any proof that a God exists, doesn't mean that there IS no God...

Like I said... open-minded.

Excellent! That sums up my argument percisely.

To push the argument further, the whole "quantum uncertainity" principle was about proving we cannot really prove anything (a contradiction in itself).

I think when people 'wish' but don't believe in God, it is just HOPE. They 'hope' for something to come true, or happen. Possibly the stigma attached to growing up in a predominantly Christian country makes them wish the same way I might say 'Oh God' without even caring about the meaning of those words. They do not look to a diety or unknown force to help them, because as you say they don't believe in one. It's just habit. Children wish upon stars for example - no mention of God there.

I wasn't really saying people who hope believe in some type of God, but people who believe in hope are believing in a supernatural force. It doesn't have to be the Christian God, and I am sorry if I miscommunicated my point. It doesn't even have to be a sentient and/or connecting force. Just SOME type of force that exists beyond our scope of reality. The real question is, if we believe in hope yet retain a truly critical mind, is that only a result of childhood conditioning, or is some part of our subconscious drawing conclusions we either do not want to or simply cannot fathom?
 
Hmm... I'm not actually sure you need to believe in a supernatural force to hope or wish for things to happen. If you hope for something to happen, it merely means you desire it to; likewise if you wish for it to. Its only if, when that thing *does* happen, you decide your wish or hope had something to do with it that there is any necessary supernatural involvement.

There's an example of someone being tied to a railway track, and wishing that the train would stop before it hits them. When the train does stop, what do they think? It just so happens that the driver was out very very later last night at a friend's stag night, and now he can't stay awake - he fell asleep on the stop button at just the right time, and the train didn't hit the person on the tracks.

Now, anyone but the suicidal would wish that the train stop in time. But once it does...
- Do you declare that this is a miracle caused by the divine (there *is* belief associated with your desire to live) despite being explainable in natural terms?
- Do you declare that he is "very lucky", but that the actual event was nothing but a beneficial coincidence, and that your wish to live had nothing to do with the result (no belief in the supernatural)?
- Do you decide that this event was inevitable from the process of cause and effect (determinism - since one thing goes in and produces one result all the time, on a microscopic scale every interaction is necessarily the case, and choice is but an illusion, as is chance)?
- Or can you come up with something else entirely?

Hoping or wishing for something is merely the expression of desire. It is in the interpreting of the result that you find out whether you believe or not...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top