Is there a god?

[PLAYER57832]

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass? No one even has a real seriously taken theory about that (people think seriously about it, but no one has anything more than guesses). Besides, its just theory of how our known pieces began, not necessarily all of everything. There might even be more tha n one universe.

End = Heat death[/quote]End of Earth, likely. Universe? a guess, nothing more.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

The universe began with the Big Bang.[/quote] Again, no.. that is how what we see might have been created.


As for why it happened, I don't know and I'm not going to begin to try to explain why. We may know in the future. But as for now, saying "I don't know" is much better than inventing a God of the Gaps and attributing everything we don't know to his doing.[/quote]It is "better" only because you like that answer better. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for why it "must" be better. Basically you don't like the religions you have seen (whether you understand them fully or not.. and from what you have written, its mostly "not"), so leap to "therefore there must be no God". Insert any other question and you would likely be among those asserting most firmly that the unknown is just.. unknown. Yet, becuase its "God" you feel the right to be arrogant.

Its still closed-minded arrogance. No "God" exception.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

If someone here has said that physical proof of a phenomenon precludes the possibility of a God exist, they are technically wrong. Technically. But for people who know about the basic inquisitive nature of humans and a basic understanding of the purpose of gods throughout human history, it is blindingly obvious that every god was invented to explain things that early humans could not have possibly understood. Once we fully understand a phenomenon without having to resort to a god to explain it, it makes the chances of said god existing practically zero. It is no different now, except the questions we try to answer now are things like "Why does the universe exist" instead of "Where does lightning come from?"[/quote]
Funny, it was "blindly obvious" to many that if you kept sailing west, you would fall off a cliff. (yes, I am fully aware that some ancient people knew the world was round.. but many people accept that there could be a God as well, or fully believe that there IS one).

Here's a clue in science. When you start asserting "everyone knows" .. "its blindly obvious" etc, etc... chances are its you who is blind.

[pmchugh]

I keep hearing Kalam from john. I could be able to find something to end that. Player is just being ridiculous, as you both have pointed out.

Cute... you don't understand what I am saying, insist on incredibly simplistic answers to a question so complex we don't TRULY even understand all the possibilities and so I am "being ridiculous"? You all talk of the origins, but ignore the FACT that we don't even know that the universe actually has a beginnig and end. We don't know, in that particular context, if the Earth truly does, either. We just know that we percieve it as having such.

Typical arrogance! OK, then explain, fully, ALL the possibilities for how the universe began. Explain, clearly what existed before. When you can even begin to approach those questions, then you can claim I am "being ridiculous". Until then.. those who claim ANY real knowledge of any of these ideas, and attempts to classify it as other than belief, is being narrow minded, illogical, unscientific and arrogant.

Pretty worrisome in people claiming to be using scientific thinking and proof for their assertions.

Even if you narrow this down to the beginnings of Earth, there are many theories and really no preclusion of God in any of them, except that some arrogant atheists try to insist that physical proof IS proof of no God. That is just false and narrow thinking, not "logic" or science at all. It is a claim that their belief supercedes other beliefs.

Why would God be a prominent possibility never mind a "belief"? You can disprove at least parts of all organised religions and they are so obvious man made it is ridiculous. So where do you start to bring God into it and why? What led you to believe this?

No, you cannot disprove parts of all organized religion. You can disprove some parts of many religions and basically all of some religions.

BUT, disproving organized religion and disproving God are very, very different things. One is an institution created by human beings. The other is a being that may or may not exist. Many religions do believe in God, but that does not make them the same thing.

If the answer is anything other than organised religion, family, personal tragedy or community then I would be shocked.

As a Scientist, I have been taught objectivity is the highest form of reason. That doesn't mean lacking opinion, but it means understanding the difference between opinion, belief and fact. Claiming that you can "prove any religion wrong" shows that you lack that discernment. You don't even KNOW all religions (impossible to do so, really), never mind know you can disprove them. Y ou certainly cannot prove there is no God.

What you do is set up a strawman of what someone convinced you God was about or you seem to believe God is about..and then you find ways that idea is incorrect. But, like any strawman, it has nothing to do with the beliefs of real people. It is you convincing yourself and attempting to claim it is some kind of knowledge and logic of other ideas.

And, many people have attempted to disprove my religion.. ALL have failed miserably.

No offense but this post is laughable. You misread parts of my post and make a straw man out of me and then turn around and say that is what I am doing. The only point I will give you is I forgot to add the word "mainstream" before "organised religion".

I would like to know your precise beliefs and I promise you that I will show you either how you are adapting previous religions to avoid the wrongs in them, or you believe in a God that has no implications to any part of our life, or you may even offer me something that is provably wrong.

By the way I never claimed I could disprove God, in fact I would say it is impossible. I merely stated there is little scientific reason to invent God as a theory.

[Woodruff]

How many gods are there?

If you have to ask, you can't afford it

ARE YOU DODGING THE QUESTION?!?

Phatscotty would never do such a thing!

[Woodruff]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

[john9blue]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

cuz presumably it acts just like everything else in our universe

[Aradhus]

And, many people have attempted to disprove my religion.. ALL have failed miserably.

Your religion is retarded. It is not necessary to fufill whatever inane criteria you've pulled out of your asshole as essential for disproving your religion to disregard your religion as useless nonsense. Your god created hundreds of millions of galaxies filled with hundreds of millions of stars and planets in each galaxy, all utterly different and diverse from each other. What matters however is that in one of these galaxies is a tiny little planet, orbiting a little star, for on this planet are millions of different species, but there is one particular species which is incredibly special(golly gee, what are the odds, it's us!). Of This one particular species there are billions of individuals all with different ideas, different languages, different customs and morals, basically incredible diversity. Which is bad because what matters, what is utterly important, is that this diversity is weeded out, because god wants all the creatures of this particular species to think the same, and act the same.

It's cool though, because he's such a good guy he's given us free will.. to do what he wants, or suffer the consequences.

[Woodruff]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

cuz presumably it acts just like everything else in our universe

It's existence would not preclude it "acting just like everything else in our universe", necessarily.

[john9blue]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

cuz presumably it acts just like everything else in our universe

It's existence would not preclude it "acting just like everything else in our universe", necessarily.

but if you want to believe that it doesn't, then you'd better have proof.

[Woodruff]

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

cuz presumably it acts just like everything else in our universe

It's existence would not preclude it "acting just like everything else in our universe", necessarily.

but if you want to believe that it doesn't, then you'd better have proof.

Do you have proof that God exists? You seem to be making the assertion in this thread that he COULD, yet I haven't seen your proof to that claim. Why do you get to claim that proof is a requirement for the assertion of something that COULD exist, but I cannot?

[john9blue]

but if you want to believe that it doesn't, then you'd better have proof.

Do you have proof that God exists? You seem to be making the assertion in this thread that he COULD, yet I haven't seen your proof to that claim. Why do you get to claim that proof is a requirement for the assertion of something that COULD exist, but I cannot?

where did i ever say that belief in god doesn't require proof?

you guys seem to think that i'm giving theists a free pass when i criticize atheists for their lack of proof. i'm not.

but most religious people acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and that they don't have proof. atheists are the ones who don't have proof AND try to pretend like they don't need it. that's even worse.

i would be 100% tolerant of an atheist who told me "i don't have proof of my belief that there is no god, but i choose to believe it anyway because i feel it is the best conclusion to be drawn". most atheists don't even bother acknowledging that their belief is a belief. hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine.

[Woodruff]

but if you want to believe that it doesn't, then you'd better have proof.

Do you have proof that God exists? You seem to be making the assertion in this thread that he COULD, yet I haven't seen your proof to that claim. Why do you get to claim that proof is a requirement for the assertion of something that COULD exist, but I cannot?

where did i ever say that belief in god doesn't require proof?

You have stated several times IN THIS VERY THREAD that there is just as much of a possibility that God exists as that he does not. Yet, despite that claim of the possibility, you have presented zero proof of it. And yet, I posit the possibility that the initial mass of the universe has always existed, and you've made the statement that, in order to make that claim, I had better have proof. You can't have it both ways, John.

you guys seem to think that i'm giving theists a free pass when i criticize atheists for their lack of proof. i'm not.

I said no such thing. I am simply holding you to your words.

but most religious people acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and that they don't have proof. atheists are the ones who don't have proof AND try to pretend like they don't need it. that's even worse.

SCIENTISTS (not ATHEISTS) recognize that "proof" is an impossible concept to achieve. We don't even have PROOF of the mechanics of gravity. We simply have a theory.

hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine.

It IS possible to find irony in almost anything.

[pmchugh]

but if you want to believe that it doesn't, then you'd better have proof.

Do you have proof that God exists? You seem to be making the assertion in this thread that he COULD, yet I haven't seen your proof to that claim. Why do you get to claim that proof is a requirement for the assertion of something that COULD exist, but I cannot?

where did i ever say that belief in god doesn't require proof?

you guys seem to think that i'm giving theists a free pass when i criticize atheists for their lack of proof. i'm not.

but most religious people acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and that they don't have proof. atheists are the ones who don't have proof AND try to pretend like they don't need it. that's even worse.

i would be 100% tolerant of an atheist who told me "i don't have proof of my belief that there is no god, but i choose to believe it anyway because i feel it is the best conclusion to be drawn". most atheists don't even bother acknowledging that their belief is a belief. hypocrisy is a pet peeve of mine.

I think you would struggle to find an athiest who wouldn't agree to that statement. However I don't think you require belief to utterly reject certain Gods such as the christian, muslim, jewish and greek gods.

[john9blue]

You have stated several times IN THIS VERY THREAD that there is just as much of a possibility that God exists as that he does not. Yet, despite that claim of the possibility, you have presented zero proof of it. And yet, I posit the possibility that the initial mass of the universe has always existed, and you've made the statement that, in order to make that claim, I had better have proof. You can't have it both ways, John.

you're confusing possibility with certainty/belief.

i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.

to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.

me saying that "god might or might not exist" is tautologous. why would i need evidence for a statement like that?

i believe the probability of god is roughly 50/50 because i have yet to see a convincing argument for either side.

SCIENTISTS (not ATHEISTS) recognize that "proof" is an impossible concept to achieve. We don't even have PROOF of the mechanics of gravity. We simply have a theory.

fine, change "proof" to "evidence" and reread.

[PROFITS]

You have stated several times IN THIS VERY THREAD that there is just as much of a possibility that God exists as that he does not. Yet, despite that claim of the possibility, you have presented zero proof of it. And yet, I posit the possibility that the initial mass of the universe has always existed, and you've made the statement that, in order to make that claim, I had better have proof. You can't have it both ways, John.

you're confusing possibility with certainty/belief.

i agree that there is a possibility that the initial mass has always existed. that doesn't mean i believe it.

to justify your belief in that proposition, you need some kind of evidence.

me saying that "god might or might not exist" is tautologous. why would i need evidence for a statement like that?

i believe the probability of god is roughly 50/50 because i have yet to see a convincing argument for either side.

SCIENTISTS (not ATHEISTS) recognize that "proof" is an impossible concept to achieve. We don't even have PROOF of the mechanics of gravity. We simply have a theory.

fine, change "proof" to "evidence" and reread.

Well said. Only thing I may disagree on is the convincing argument from either side. Both sides are convincing in my opinion however both have many holes that require a leap of faith at some point if you are referring to "Intelligent Design and Big Bang/ Macro Evolution.

[Haggis_McMutton]

i believe the probability of god is roughly 50/50 because i have yet to see a convincing argument for either side.

So anything that you've yet to see a convincing argument for has a 50/50 chance of being true?
Anything unfalsifiable and untestable has a 50/50 chance of being true?

You do realize your could have used this exact argument to say that there's a 50/50 chance that god causes diseases and that god throws lightning bolts before we figured out how those things function.
Perhaps the ever diminishing domain of the gods should skew that 50/50 odds a bit.

[john9blue]

Well said. Only thing I may disagree on is the convincing argument from either side. Both sides are convincing in my opinion however both have many holes that require a leap of faith at some point if you are referring to "Intelligent Design and Big Bang/ Macro Evolution.

those are not contradictory IMO. there is a large amount of evidence in support of the big bang and macroevolution.

So anything that you've yet to see a convincing argument for has a 50/50 chance of being true?
Anything unfalsifiable and untestable has a 50/50 chance of being true?

You do realize your could have used this exact argument to say that there's a 50/50 chance that god causes diseases and that god throws lightning bolts before we figured out how those things function.
Perhaps the ever diminishing domain of the gods should skew that 50/50 odds a bit.

i don't think god is unfalsifiable or untestable.

[everywhere116]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

Indeed. It's irrelevant anyway, since the positive energy (along with the positive mass due to mass-energy equivilancy) added to the negative energy stored in space add up to zero.

This is a great video of Stephen Hawking explaining this concept and many others that make God unnecessary. This concept is explored at around the 25 minute mark.

[BigBallinStalin]

So anything that you've yet to see a convincing argument for has a 50/50 chance of being true?
Anything unfalsifiable and untestable has a 50/50 chance of being true?

You do realize your could have used this exact argument to say that there's a 50/50 chance that god causes diseases and that god throws lightning bolts before we figured out how those things function.
Perhaps the ever diminishing domain of the gods should skew that 50/50 odds a bit.

i don't think god is unfalsifiable or untestable.

WAT

[PROFITS]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

Indeed. It's irrelevant anyway, since the positive energy (along with the positive mass due to mass-energy equivilancy) added to the negative energy stored in space add up to zero.

This is a great video of Stephen Hawking explaining this concept and many others that make God unnecessary. This concept is explored at around the 25 minute mark.

I find it funny how he insinuates for us to choose between God and the laws of physics as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. What does individual people of any century of any organized religions decisions have to do with The Bible? The Bible isn't anti Science. The Bible isn't a Science book either, but there are some things in The Bible that relate to some Science. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Anyways, as I mentioned earlier at some point you have to take a leap of faith. He may believe a "black hole" was involved in our creation, however he is taking a leap of faith. You have to take a leap of faith at some point if you're believing in something that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago just as you would have to do for 6,000 years ago. Some people may understand this logic and some may not. I respect whatever your beliefs are and I don't wish to get into a religious or political debate. My only point was that faith is required to believe in Intelligent Design and Big Bang/ Macro Evolution.

[Jippd]

Religions are created to control the people

[natty dread]

but most religious people acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and that they don't have proof. atheists are the ones who don't have proof AND try to pretend like they don't need it. that's even worse.

Strawman argument against straw-atheists.

[Phatscotty]

Is there a god?

Yes.

There is? What does god want from me?

Also, can you tell him/her/it that I want nothing to do with her/him/it? Thanks.

He says he wants you to never get laid again.

He says if you don't want anything to do with him, then you wouldn't be reading/posting in this thread.

[chang50]

So then, you don't have any belief on the matter?

Do you consider the statement:
"There is some being outside of the universe that caused the universe to happen" to have exactly a 50/50 shot of being true?

i'd say around 50/50, yeah



Really,50/50?On one hand you have a particular speculation,'some being outside the universe that caused it to happen'.And on the other hand you have every other possible speculation,within and outside our imagination,an infinity of possibilities.Probability has to suggest the latter is a bit more likely surely?Personally I don't think anyone has ever come remotely close to knowing why there is anything.It could even be unknowable,as speculation goes that is no more fanciful than positing a supreme creator.

[Aradhus]

Is there a god?

Yes.

There is? What does god want from me?

Also, can you tell him/her/it that I want nothing to do with her/him/it? Thanks.

He says he wants you to never get laid again.

Cockblocked by god, eh. If he feels threatened by my pimp moves he can always give me a call and I'll give him some pointers.

He says if you don't want anything to do with him, then you wouldn't be reading/posting in this thread.

I wasn't reading this thread, I was reading a phatscotty post, as I have a program set up that I get a ping and a little message alerting me that Phatscotty has made a new post.

[everywhere116]

Beginning = Big Bang

Nope, what created that initial mass?

Why must that initial mass have been created?

Indeed. It's irrelevant anyway, since the positive energy (along with the positive mass due to mass-energy equivilancy) added to the negative energy stored in space add up to zero.

This is a great video of Stephen Hawking explaining this concept and many others that make God unnecessary. This concept is explored at around the 25 minute mark.

I find it funny how he insinuates for us to choose between God and the laws of physics as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict. What does individual people of any century of any organized religions decisions have to do with The Bible? The Bible isn't anti Science. The Bible isn't a Science book either, but there are some things in The Bible that relate to some Science. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Anyways, as I mentioned earlier at some point you have to take a leap of faith. He may believe a "black hole" was involved in our creation, however he is taking a leap of faith. You have to take a leap of faith at some point if you're believing in something that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago just as you would have to do for 6,000 years ago. Some people may understand this logic and some may not. I respect whatever your beliefs are and I don't wish to get into a religious or political debate. My only point was that faith is required to believe in Intelligent Design and Big Bang/ Macro Evolution.

He wasn't saying that the laws of physics disprove the existence for God, just that we don't need him to explain how the universe occurred. He is destroying the Kalam argument, not disproving God itself. You can't do that. The concept of God is unfalsifiable.