I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
Since I do believe in a God then I am not one you direct this threat to, but I still like your later sentence.
I myself was born into a Catholic family but we never read the Bible and church never taught us anything, so I had a religion by name only.
As growing up I realized there were ghost and spirit things in this world which is the reason why I believed in a God. So I was near 28-30 years old when I first read the Bible, so the Bible did not shape or form my idea of the God thing and the Bible failed to answer many of my own questions about the spirit world.
Science does a lot, as like the "Big-Bang" is a scientific proof of the creation day, and the earth circling around on nothing in empty space being held by invisible forces is a far bigger and more wild of a miracle than is anything told in the Bible.
And I researched other religions which do have great information about the God thing and about the spirit world, and I find that all religions do have a sort of harmony that connects to the Bible and to science.
So my own idea of God is not in the Bible, but the Bible is still helpful and insightful.
There is no evidence to support the existence of a God.
Your belief in a God is conjecture, from suggestions planted by indoctrination.
The belief in a God made sense in a pre-historic world, but with the progress of science, there is no reason to presuppose that there is anything other than reality.
My perception is that there is no reason for a God, no matter what you believe, it is merely conjecture.
And I accept the FACT that I DON'T KNOW!
Interesting. Your entire reply, up until the last statement, implies a direct contradiction to that last statement.
Sounds as if you are in strong denial of that which you admittedly have no answer to.
I knew someone was going to spot this immediately...and of course people were just salivating like Pavlov's dogs. But I expected it to be a fundie.
It is still valid that the existence of a God is illogical...although I must play within the boundaries of logic as well, and admit that there is no way of KNOWING anything absolutely.
Thanks for the expedient correction.
I'm not Pavlov's dog, although I'm sure you giggled when you typed that.
The point is still in question. Why the vehemence? Since you admit you don't know; it almost sounds as if you're trying to convince yourself it could never be possible. Judging from your post.
If the existence is not logical, is it logical to deny that existence so fiercely?
there is also no evidence that refutes the existence of a god either. Lots to refute various definitions of one.
Even the proponents of big bang admit they can't refute god. They do a pretty good job of refuting religion.
Just how many gods would you expect science to refute? Should it start with the gods people believed in thousands of years ago or maybe the ones the people believe in today?
If you were to produce a lengthy list of gods from Ah Puch to Zeus, should we begin with the A's and work our way towards the Z's?
Seriously, who cares about refuting the existence of all or any one of those gods when you can't even come with a shred of evidence for their existence?
Given that science is not actually trying to refute god, none.
Scientific method is a way to determine and test what is happening in reality. As yet, science has not done away with the notion that the universe is an artifact.
There are many that believe there is no god because what science has determined to be true. My opinion is that this is because their notion of god is simply too narrow. (limited to the bible, for example), but I've yet to encounter a theory that says 'there is no god because. . .' Sure individual scientists profess a belief in whether there is a god or not. They do not (correctly) profess to know that.
Indeed, theists tend to ask, nay demand, that non-theists prove there is no god. A frequent and correct non-theist reply is that it is not up to them to prove no god, but up to a theist to prove there is a god. Perfectly valid. No one can prove there is a god. No one can prove there is not.
Even Dawkins has to admit that he can't categorically state there is no god, but he sure can say why he himself doesn't believe in one. He makes some strong arguments for that belief.
My own belief is that no one has sufficient knowledge to state to a certainty that there is no creator.
Religion, now, that is for the most part easily refuted.
I'm really upset with hub for not having its forums jump on the "like button" bandwagon. It comes in handy in situations like this, @ Anton of the North.
There is no reason to refute any gods. Myths are myths.
The universe is a what?
Are you referring to the Christian god? What about their notions of the many other gods? Are their opinions of those gods too narrow? What is your opinion about all those other gods?
There are plenty of reasons not to believe in gods. One doesn't need a theory to not believe.
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. We need, nay demand you to show us your god exists.
True, it is amazing how those two statements can be used for just about anything; Loch ness monster, visiting aliens, etc.
Seems you don't much about Dawkins.
LOL! Substitute "creator" for Loch Ness Monster, visiting aliens, etc.
It is close-minded and self-centered for people to think, religious or not, that we humans are the only possible intelligent life forms in such a vast Universe. Who's to say that there aren't other life forms, who are unable to travel deeply into space as we are also unable? We may never find out about their existence, and they ours, but the likelihood of their existence has the same probability as ours.
I believe that imagination is important, otherwise discoveries would never be made. But I also believe that our imaginations shouldn't run our lives either.
I would agree it's close-minded to think we are the only lifeforms in the universe.
But, it is certainly folly to think those other lifeforms have developed intelligence, or worse, to assume they can travel to earth.
Read up on space travel and the problems associated with it. You will find it is far more difficult than one can imagine.
Yes, I understand that, which is why I said "Who's to say that there aren't other life forms, who are unable to travel deeply into space as we are also unable? We may never find out about their existence, and they ours..,"
It is too many science fiction movies that would make us believe that they would be significantly smarter than us, and have already found manners of deep space travel that we cannot fathom yet, though it is also not impossible.
I think it's safe to say that some concepts and ideas in the future that science says now is true will be disproven as this is the nature of science and research. Maybe someone will make a significant discovery concerning Et life and/or deep space travel. Maybe we never will. The important question for the present isn't who knows, but who can know, with such limited perspective?
Scientists cannot change or deny the problems of space travel of which they understand very well.
For example, life forms cannot last very long in space without protection from high energy gamma rays, which would easily penetrate any ship that can be constructed. This problem cannot be "disproved" in the future.
The speed of light and the fact we cannot travel faster than that is another problem, meaning trips from just one star to another will take many years. Crossing a galaxy will take tens of thousands of years. This problem will also not be "disproved" in the future.
It can certainly be corrected if a substance is discovered (or created artificially) in the future that can keep out these high energy gamma rays.
[I would like to note that some things that were considered science fiction in the past are now quite real and tangible. For example going to the moon, telephoning while looking at the person you are talking to, computers with voice recognition, etc.]
Also, what is the reason that we cannot move faster than the speed of light? That is actually a serious question, as I admit to having little knowledge about just how fast that is and what limiters there are.
But what if, and this may be a big if, but it is only an IF, one day a scientist after a life dedicated to only this purpose, does find something that no one else saw before, some complex series of equations and a second look at some theories or the formations of new ones that will allow us to be able to reach and surpass that speed?
You're looking at what has already been discovered. I dare say there is more complexities in this wonderful Universe to be discovered. Theories can still be, as I said before, disproven or maybe just adjusted as new information is discovered. I don't believe that what we know now is all there is to know. And this conversation has inspired me to open a new discussion. Yay!
Currently, lead is the only substance that helps, but lead is dangerous to humans over long exposure, too.
There's a huge difference between those feats and space travel.
That has something to do with magnetic and electrical waves and the properties of space and time.
The barrier on how fast something can travel through space is not something that can be over-ruled with an equation of theory.
There is if it is your intention to change my mind. If not, consider your position noted.
Artifact. I apologise. I was using the term to refer to an object made with intent and purpose, but I see most dictionary definitions attribute that making with a human entity, which I do not.
The 'many other gods' you refer to are only opinions as to what a creator is. There either is or is not a creator. The variances between one or another belief in god is social, not scientific. As I said, rationalists have no trouble refuting religion.
If one believes in god, of course one would need a reason not to believe. You clearly don't believe in god, and would need a reason to believe. Valid yes? Why should a believer be treated any differently?
You are going to be disapointed in your 'demand'. I have no way of proving the existence of god, just as you have no way of proving the universe is random.
If I was in a position to assert my belief in a way that restricted your life, you would have every reason to be upset by that. I promise I won't do that.
I can certainly prove no loch ness monster. All I would have to be willing to do is drag Loch Ness. I can't prove there are no aliens. I've never been off planet to do so. Neither has anyone else (except for a handful of astronauts. Ask them what they think.)
I only know what I've read of and by Dawkins. Tell me what you believe you know that you think I don't. (two opportunities to change a life in a single day. wahoo!)
or just LOL and retire from the discussion, if that works for you.
I don't see the earth being made with any intent or purpose, none. If you see that somewhere, please explain what makes the earth appear that way?
Yes, there either is a Loch ness, visiting aliens, etc. or not. We can imagine anything or not.
Is indoctrination a reason to believe? Have you actually seen any believers give reasons for their beliefs?
One cannot prove anothers misunderstanding of a particular topic. Who says the universe is random?
I can certainly prove no loch ness monster. All I would have to be willing to do is drag Loch Ness. I can't prove there are no aliens. I've never been off planet to do so. Neither has anyone else (except for a handful of astronauts. Ask them what they think.)
He doesn't write or work from the premise of a belief.
Assuming the Big Bang is true, everything after is a direct product of that. Did someone actually 'mold the earth' with his 'hands' ? Of course not. Does everything follow the rules that science has been able to deduce? It appears so. And the rules themselves? They either came out by accident or were determined. My only position is that I have not yet encountered any theory that states which one it is. As the theorist's (those I am familiar with) have (using Occam's) simply discarded as irrelevant anything prior to the big bang, they have declared god improbable, not impossible.
I am unwilling to discard a possibility as irrelevant merely because I am as yet unable to determine the truth.
Indoctrination is the principle reason most people believe in many things, so yes, breaking an indoctrinated belief requires something convincing. If someone believes without reason, reason will not bring them to belief.
I was not indoctrinated to any faith, so I don't know how hard that is, but based on posts here by some of religion, it looks at least as tough as convincing a rationalist to 'have faith'.
Perhaps I'm using the wrong word (random), but if not purposed, what else is there? Accidental imposition of order? There are some pretty decent rationalist arguments stating that every collision of every particle post big bang was totally and completely predictable based on the laws of physics, (I'm not sure if that is still supported in terms of quantum mechanics so willing to be corrected on this) which puts the kibosh on free will and any random occurance.
The only question there is then 'is this imposed order on purpose or accident' If everything is predictable and inevitable, is that what philosophers mean by 'fate'?
I know Dawkins doesn't write from the premise of belief. In "The God Delusion" he takes some pains to define god as supernatural and attacks that, and resulting religions. In this, I agree.
I don't have faith in religion. I have an observation that why we are here, (if there is such a why), what caused us to be here (if there is such a cause) are as yet unresolved by science. Possibly unresolvable by science. This observation has not been countered by any theory I'm aware of. So I am content to say I don't know if there is or is not a cause that can be attributed to a creator.
As to what Dawkins believes, he's said it. God is a delusion. Fair enough, but he is not saying he knows that a creator (impersonal) is not involved. He, like most theorists I have read, are saying it is unpredictable and unknowable and therefore irrelevant to any discussion of reality. He is (I think) justified in his position of religion's effect on society.
My experience (though limited) is that most people who are atheists have become so as a direct result of their exposure to an existing religion.
This is where thinking ends and believing begins.
Whatever happened before the BB is not known. Thinking about it will lead one to theorize about how energy works while believers will say a god kick-started it all. From where the believer derives such a conclusion is baffling. The premise would be such that a god would somehow know that by introducing a sea of high energy radiation into an open space would bring about people on earth obeying and worshiping the very same god billions of years later. Baffling conclusion. How one could actually add this explanation as a legitimate theory is equally baffling.
Could you explain why such a theory would be compelling?
The "rules" of science were not accidental nor were they be determined. They occurred exactly as they should have occurred, and we are the result.
What may be accidental was perhaps the theorized asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs allowing other animals to evolve.
Are you saying this particular accident was something a god determined to happen 65 million years ago after allowing dinosaurs to roam the earth for 250 million years? Baffling indeed.
Notice how a little thinking about it can demonstrate a determined BB and what occurred after it makes no sense at all?
There is no evidence to support that I exist either to some. Billions out there do not know I exist but I do. Same can be said for everyone else.
For those who do not know of my existence I don't exist. Doesn't stop me from existing. Same goes for God.
However, if there were a question of your existence, it would be possible to prove that you do, in fact, exist.
(There is no evidence to support that I exist)
Existence has nothing to do with proof or evidence. Existence is defnined.
Exist: physical presence, that which has shape and location.
If your god has physical presence, he exists. If not, he can only be "thought to be real" - back to hope, faith, and beliefs.
Yes indeed I do agree. Proof of existence is not required when it has physical presence that has shape and location.
Gods physical existence will depend on your definition of God.
Define your understanding of God and maybe we will have something to discuss
I would think that any gods existence would depend solely on its existence and not how we define it.
Not true. The existence of something spiritual is argued by its attributes. If you believe in a powerful being working outside of the natural laws that would be something entirely different than something that benevolently exists within them. Different concepts. Different definitions. Different ideas. If you call the second one god, it would be a different god.
You are right that the spiritual argument stems from attributes, but that is its problem and why the argument is fallacious. Only something real can have attributes, so defining something by its attributes presupposes its existence - this is begging the question, or circular reasoning.
Also, the issue of belief has no bearing on reality. Reality is binary: something is or something isn't. There is no "Might be so" in reality. If one stops believing he has two eyes, does one go blind or does reality override that "belief" and allow sight, regardless?
Here is the deal: if the idea being discussed is irrational - a 1-dimensional string or gods who are not objects but disembodied spirits, every statement should start with the premise, "It is possible that..." in order to understand that all we are doing is exercising a parlor game of "What if magic were real?"
The danger lies in beginning to believe that a particular brand of "what if?" also corresponds to reality, at which point god-fearing men like Jim Jones and David Koresh engage in mass murder, or idealistic and naive young men fly hijacked airplanes into buildings.
The love of money is not the root of all evil - the root of all evil lies in irrational beliefs.
I wouldn't argue the lion's share of your post with you. I've always said spirituality can only be said to represent your hopes and dreams. None of it is provable.
That being said; there are plenty of things still left out there to be learned. We don't know it all yet.
I'm sure we've had this discussion before...so you know that I will only say: Believe just what you want.
Good to see you!
Science has never disproven or made "god" unneccessary. It simply disproves monotheistic (Judaism/Christianity/Mormon/Islam) creation accounts. That's it.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
The thing about that is that "gravity" is an invisible power stretching throughout the entire universe governing our planet and beyond, and yet we do not really know what that power truly is, or why it exist. Hawkins point is okay, but to claim we have the universe and gravity means we do not need a God is like saying we do not need a chicken since we already have the egg.
So, if it is found that gravity is "God Power" will you begin worshiping gravity?
I do see gravity as God power, as so is evolution and the big bang.
You conclude to "worship gravity" which is the science mistake, and not mine.
Science claims gravity is just some mystical force that controls the universe, as if gravity was the power in itself which it is not.
(Science claims gravity is just some mystical force that controls the universe, as if gravity was the power in itself...)
You are exactly right. To be more precise, mathematical physics uses equations to describe what happens but has no explanation for how it happens - so to overcome this obstacle mathematical physics reifies, or claims that descriptions of events (concepts) are actually causative actors (objects). Then concepts (ideas which describe or define but have no inherent properties) are used as nouns (objects that simply are and have inherent properties), like this: Gravity (concept) is a force (concept) that keeps the planets in their orbits
At least the religioius attempt an explanation: The planets are kept in their orbits by the will of god.
However, before you pat yourself on the back, understand that the religious claim is as irrational as simply asserting gravity is the force the holds planets in their orbits.
As for explanations, you both lose.
Then, you have all your answers and don't need to learn another thing. It's all just God power.
Let's lobby to close all the schools, they're obviously just a burden to our economy.
No, science does not claim that at all, you made that claim.
You and science deny a Deity / a God while still clinging to the attributes of a Deity.
As like the laws of gravity being some invisible power holding the entire universe perfectly, but then denying the God - which is being disingenuous out of a spite against God. The same with evolution and the Big Bang in that science is claiming Godly attributes while stubbornly denying the Deity.
The known reality of our planet earth being an independent round ball floating and spinning on nothing in outer space in perfect harmony is a far grander miracle then is anything told in the Bible or in any other religious text.
Many people and of course science accepts that extraordinary and strange reality of our planet earth as if it is so completely reasonable and understandable instead of seeing it as the outrageous reality which it is.
Kind of like a fish in a fish tank that see the water filter running and food dropping in every day and the fish thinks that is just normal life.
There really is nothing sensible or even logical about the round earth floating and spinning around in empty space with the Sun sitting just perfectly aligned, and every person on the globe standing straight up and down at the same time, so to claim that as logical and sensible is really being absurd and ridiculous.
Science accepts the attributes of God while denying the Deity - out of scientific spite and human arrogance.
I can see from your post that even after spending way too much time with a Bible and almost zero time learning about the fundamentals of science, you still manage to accept that the earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe. That's a great leap in forward thinking. Congratulations.
(The same with evolution and the Big Bang in that science is claiming Godly attributes while stubbornly denying the Deity.)
Only real things can have real attributes. Concepts, like god, can only be described or defined, so you are confusing a description of an imaginary god with an attribute.
The trouble everyone seems to having here is confusing gravity with a thing, an object. It is not. Gravity is a description of what occurs. It is a concept. Planets, like Saturn, have attributes - size, shape, rings, etc. Gravity has no attributes. Gravity is a description of what happens to objects that get too close to the planets that do have attributes.
Science describes the affects from an unknown cause and termst his unknown "gravity" - but still assumes a natural explanation.
Theism invokes magic as the explanation for this unknown cause - and then invents magical attributes that it claims its magical unknown cause possesses as a validation of the assertion. But this is circular. Only real things can have attributes so an assertion of held attributes of an imaginary being presupposes the reality of that being.
(It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.) ~ Stephen Hawking
I don't mean to offend, here, but how is this appeal to authority all that much different from a theist pointing to the Book of Genesis as authority?
Stephen Hawking is certainly smart, but in all his brilliance he cannot explain rationally his following claim:
(Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing).
Nothing=complete nothing. In mathematics, nothing is represented as zero. How can any mathematician explain how 0 x (anything you want to put here)=anything other than 0? How can gravity have any affect on zero, on nothing?
The only way 0 x (anything) = (other than 0) is if a system of logic allows a different answer. This means the answer is a tautology only.
The theist system of logic uses an equally fallacious axiom: god can create ex nihilo.
Quantum and Mathematical physic bypass god and simply assert the axiom that 0 x (anything) is not neccessarily zero.
All I see different between the two positions is an evolutionary change to a more complex system of asserting magical causation..
However, even Hawking admits that there is a singularity at the point of the Big Bang, so that as far as we're concerned, there was "nothing" before the big bang, so either way, God or no God, there is still the problem of ex nihilo.
Remember, I'm an agnostic, not a theist. I'm just trying to say that there is no way of knowing either way.
Hawking also tries to rely on "the burden" of proof, but burden of proof only applies to things that are testable scientifically. The existence of any deity cannot be tested using scientific method, so the problem of the burden of proof is nullified,.
I don't see anything wrong with your statement - everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
It's when people take their beliefs and claim that they are facts and try to impose them on others that the trouble starts.
Science has not yet tested whether a god exists or not. and there is no way (yet) of creating such a test. Saying god does (or does not) exist as a result of scientific investigation is like trying to quantify beauty or justice or love.
That's hard to say. It would all depend on how you define the concept. Do you think it 'created' everything? Do you think it floats around, changing scenarios to suit your fancy? Do you think there is some specific place you go after death to hang out for eternity?
If you answered yes to any of those, you've got the same problem of trying to resolve your belief system with reality that the religious do.
There is evidence of God.
The Big-Bang is a proof of the creation day.
The infinite yet finite universe is unexplainable.
The existence of spirits and ghost.
Bible prophesy proven true, link here = United States and Britain in Prophesy.
The fact that people reject evidence does not mean there is no evidence.
Howdy, Mr. Cusick. Welcome to Hubpages. I’m looking forward to reading your first hub.
Please understand that I genuinely respect every person’s beliefs. I recognize them as ideas and ideals that add meaning and quality to their lives. I find it alarming, however, how often people present erroneous information as if it is fact. Don’t you? If I may, I would like to submit that much of what you said in your post above is factually untrue.
There is evidence of God? There is none, nada, not any. There are many things in life that we might easily attribute to God but first we have to prove He exists! The existence of God is an unproven theory frequently used to support equally unproven conclusions. If you know of tangible irrefutable proof there is a God, proof that does not rely on quotes from books and hearsay, then please share it. Inexplicable events, no matter how grandiose, are neither evidence nor proof. Everyone should be free to believe in God but in reality no one knows for sure.The Big Bang is a theory about the early development of the universe. As a model, it attempts to explain the earliest events in the universe from rapid expansion and the effects of cooling up to the current continuously expanding state. The Big Bang is not a proof of creation. Actually, it offers absolutely no explanation about the absolute earliest conditions of the expansion but attempts to address the general evolution of the universe going from that point forward.Unfortunately, this statement is an obvious contradiction and begs for an explanation. I am sorry, Mr. Cusick, but I’m not sure if this statement is meant to support or refute the notion that God exists. But, if you know of tangible irrefutable proof spirits and ghosts exist, then please share it with us. Quotes from books are hearsay and do not qualify. Thank you for this link to a work by cult leader Herbert Armstong in which he claims, “Editors, newscasters, foreign correspondents do not understand the real meaning of the world news they report, analyze and discuss. Heads of government are utterly unaware of the true significance of the very world-shaking events with which they deal. They have no conception of where these events are leading. Incredible? Perhaps - but true!” I read further, found more cult gobbledygook but no proof. I encourage everyone to read this piece to discover for them selves just how ludicrous this man’s claims are.This, it turns out, is the only factual statement in your entire post. However, the fact that people reject evidence is, in itself, undeniable proof that the evidence was lacking and unconvincing.
I wish you well in your pursuit of a Senate seat. I hope you continue to question, explore, and follow your bliss. Beware of false prophets who forbid you to question their tenets and who deny you your right to reason for yourself.
More and more I see postings from people who are positive that there is no god and then refer to various scientific theories as the facts that prove this.
No scientific theory I've seen states that there is no god. The proponents of them may have beliefs on the matter but they will tell you, if they are being honest, that the theory does not disprove god. Many theories have much to say why (for example) the christian god cannot be as described in the bible, but is this really surprising? The bible was not written as a scientific document. It's individual books were written by those who believed they were inspired by god. No science was applied. Experience was subjective. Those who believe it believe it because it suits them to do so.
Proponents of the big bang will admit that they don't know what (if anything) came before the singularity, but because they consider time also beginning at the big bang, they have 'determined' that it cannot be 'predicted' and is therefore irrelevant to the theory.
If that's as far as science goes, why do those who don't believe in god use it as proof that there is no god?
Because it suits them to do so.
The same reason why theists believe in god. Because it suits them to do so.
We are all acting based on our emotions. Even the rationalists.
The rationalists are able to support their position more objectively, to a point, but in the end, still their opinion and nothing more.
LOL! So, the fact that science has made massive leaps and strides in understanding the universe such to an extent that no gods were required or have shown an existence in it's creation or anytime since then and the one question to be answered in regards to our origins has yet to be answered, scientists are just acting on their emotions the same way believers act on their emotions when it comes to their beliefs?
Yep! You've got it. (not 'just' their emotions, but certainly their emotions are involved.) No one believes anything unless it suits them to do so.
Through history we've believed things to be true until they were proven differently (the earth is flat, the earth is the centre of the universe, there are four elements, there is universal time, an object's natural state is at rest, smoking is perfectly safe, climate change is not happening or not human caused, we will never go to the moon, there are nine planets)
Einstein rejected implications of his own theories because 'god does not play at dice'. This is not to say he believed in a specific god, but clearly the implications of his discoveries troubled him to look further, and prompted others to look at his work and draw their own conclusions. (personally, I agree with the Einstein statement, but who am I?)
The laws of entropy state that, left to itself, every system breaks down. Yet the universe became more ordered, not less after the big bang.
Hawkings believed at one point that when the universe started to collapse, time would run backwards. He doesn't believe that now.
Scientists change their minds all the time. Yes they do so because of research, but they do the research because of how they feel about what they have determined up to now.
When the theory comes up that says there is no god, I'll look at it too. (in as much as I'm capable. I have to take the math on faith now as it is).
Until then, agnostic I will remain.
Based on the rest of your post, it seems you don't really know what you're talking about, so it stands to reason why you would say something like that, which is very unlikely to happen.
As far as an excuse to believe in a god, you can use it, but it surely doesn't follow any logical reasoning.
You may be correct that I don't know what I'm talking about. Care to tell me why? Reasoned debate surely must be more than 'you don't know what your are talking about.' I'm offering you an opportunity to change a life here.
If its just a waste of your time, I understand, but then why post at all?
And what is illogical about 'I don't know and neither does anyone else'? That's just a fact. Until we know, we shouldn't be saying we do.
'I believe' does not equal 'I know'
I didn't want to get into your comments about Einstein and entropy, as that would lead us done another path altogether.
Increasing entropy has to do with closed systems only.
I'm sorry, I'm reading something wrong perhaps, but doesn't big bang imply a closed system? No time before, but I guess if there is no resulting big crunch than it would be open, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Of course if big bang doesn't pan out and everything has always been here, that says open to me.
And then, my entropy statement is irrelevant.
A closed system is one in which there is no method to restore loss of energy, i.e., closed to energy replacement. This is thermodynamics.
It makes sense that if lost energy cannot be replaced, the things that rely on that energy start to break down - become less ordered - increase in entropy.
The reason entropy does not increase on earth is because earth is an open system - in open systems you would expect a decline in entropy. The Sun provides a constant source of energy to earth.
To use the Laws of Thermodynamics as a basis for arguments for theism is an old subterfuge akin to spreading urban legend. Make sure you don't fall for the sleight of hand that places like The Discovery Institute use to confound and mystify the masses.
PS: It is getting harder to determine, I understand, as we as consumers of information now have the added obligation of determining the reliability of the sources.
We used to be able to get reliable information mainstream - now all we get is spin.
(We are all acting based on our emotions.)
Emotions do not lead one to acknowledge elemental errors of belief and alter that view - one has to overcome emotion and put it in its rightful place to accomplish that feat.
Emotions are only feelings. Anytime we get up and go to work when we don't feel like going we are using our reasoning ability to overcome our emotions. Anytime we open the closet door when we "know" there is a boogeyman waiting for us we are using reason to overcome emotions.
Murders, rapes, and other violent crimes are not commited by the ultra-reasonable but by those who allowed emotions to control their actions.
Here, let me fix you statement. "We are all (at times) acting on our emotions."
However, a life run by emotions is a life that is out of control.
I accept the correction. I believe that both are necessary.
I have yet to encounter anyone, though, who accepts a world view (theism, atheism, agnostic) that didn't feel right to them. Yes, we all point to reasons why we do, but our opinions are derived from how our experiences and knowledge make us feel.
Emotions may only be feelings, but thoughts are only cognitive processes.
A whole thought requires a whole human, emotions and all.
absolutely accept what you say about the violent crimes. Clearly emotion run amok.
I wonder if that's possible for rational processes. . . Maybe doesn't lead to crimes, but does it lead to any other negative result? not sure.
The simplest and most logical explanation of our existence does not include God or any other creator. That is not proof that God does not exist, but it makes his existence seem very unlikely to me.
If there is a creator, I suspect it is unconcerned with our notions of how 'likely' its existence is.
If there isn't, the 'liklihood' is likewise irrelevant.
I am 'likely' to live to 81 years of age. The car that hits me tomorrow doesn't care about that either.
The odds that a snow storm builds an igloo are pretty long, but I'll bet they are better odds than the random generation of sentience due to an exploded singularity between 10 and 20 Billion years ago.
Au contraire mon fraire, an entity that expended energy to create us would most probably have at least a passing interest in the fruits of it's labor.
The unlikelihood of it's existence is relevant to me and many other carbon-based lifeforms.
You are not "likely" to live to 81, car or no car. You are actuarially predicted to attain this age, not likely.
The odds of a snowstorm building an igloo are probably not that long.
Now let's go have a Fresca.
"an entity that expended energy to create us would most probably have at least a passing interest in the fruits of it's labor."
Who's to say this entity is uninterested, just because we are unable to detect it? What's 20 Billion years against forever?
Or perhaps we are only a bi-product of this creation and not the focus.
The odds of a snowstorm building an igloo are not that long? Really?
I would trust winning a bet against it long before I would trust winning a bet for it.
I realize the unlikelihood is relevant to you and others. It is assuredly not relevant to a creator. (Especially if it doesn't exist)
Will you settle for some kind of juice? Fresca gets in my mouth (ugg)
The God theory hasn’t been disproved by science for two very good reasons;
1. They are not looking, it's just that some people think they are and like
quoting the statement as a fact, which it isn't.
2. You cannot use science to disprove something doesn't exist.
What science IS looking for is one unifying theory of everything and so far every theory, every equation they have come up with thus far does not have a big ‘G’ for god anywhere proving that science is not seriously considering that as an answer or even a plausible theory.
I agree science cannot disprove something that does not exist. If science is not looking though how does science know it doesn't exist? How does science look for a unifying theory in 95% of the unknown? One unifying theory would include the 95% unknown wouldn't it?
Pretty sure you have that wrong on both counts,
Science isn't looking because there is nothing to look at. Give them a half assed decent theory on any subject and they will test that theory to prove or disprove it, that's how science works and the only way it works.
Science does not start with nothing and work backwards until they find something that seems to fit, that they leave to religionists.
I would venture that you have your percentages the wrong way round as well, I would say the unknown has shrunk to 5%.
So in your view science knows 95% of what is considered infinite.... or at least has a theory about it?
If so, that would mean our universe and everything in it is largely known theoretically anyways by science. Making our universe and everything in it largely finite. Therefore scientifically there should be a beginning and an end or at least boundaries, which one could hypothesize that there is.
Since they still do not know what came before or what caused the big bang and they still do not know what is beyond our universe makes one question whether or not it is only 5% that is unknown. On a less dramatic note they also do not know all there is to know about the human body or still do not know all the species that exist on earth.... etc. I could go on and on about what it is not known I am not sure how 95% could be that way off the mark?
Sure they may have theories about 95% of what is known, but that might just account for 95% of the 5% and still there remains 95% of what is unknown.
It will be a very long time then if science is not even going to look at nothing. Nothing is full of something if they explore the nothingness. Nothing is a label like most of the English language, a very loaded word like God.
I'm glad I don't live in your head, like so many people who haunt these religious threads the sum of what you don't know staggers the imagination yet you keep trying to offer up answers that sound so profound yet are just empty rhetoric.
The world of science does not profess to have all the answers and what a boring thing life would be if there were no new challenges for us to explore and explain. Yet science continues to move forward.
The concept and the need of Gods was born out of fear, ignorance and superstition shortly after mankind started to ask WHY ? The one God idea sort of phased in after a King decided it might be a good idea about 700 BC. Considering the sheer body of proof available that discounts the vast majority of information written in the Bible as mere fairytale, specifically the creation of everything, and the entire population being possible from a genetic pool of 2.
Given that at least three of the major manmade religions of the world are based upon various books of the bible why so many individuals cling to such rubbish defies all reason and logic, both of which are required in an enquiring mind.
The sum of what I don’t know amounts to about 99% of what is known by others and that is probably overstating it, so I would agree with you there. Not sure what was sounding profound about my post… but..ok.
Yes, I didn’t think science professed such a thing and I do agree they do not have all the answers.
You seem to be referring to the God as described in the bible. There are many perceptions of God that exist. Christianity is one. There are an infinite amount of other perceptions that exist but then some of these perceptions might invalidate your argument because it pertains to the Christian understanding.
Since you are referring only to the Christian understanding of God there isn’t much more to say except that there is a stigma attached to the Christian understanding of God that prevents one from taking off the invisible spectacles that view the “now evolved” state of our existence. Take them off and one might understand what the ancients were pointing to with the limitations of knowledge and experience that existed way back then.
Clinging to anything serves no one.
"The concept and the need of GODS (plural)was born out of fear, ignorance and superstition shortly after mankind started to ask WHY ?"
I said nothing about God as defined by the Jewish, Chistian and Muslim faiths other than to point out that that one God was created by man passing a law in 700BC.
In my original statement re quoted so you don't have to look it up, I thought the bit about "...shortly after mankind started to ask WHY ?" might have given you a clue as to just how far back in history I was going.
Let me see if I can simplify it even more, MAN CREATED THE GODS, ALL OF THEM, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !
Then as he evolved man learned how to use the threat of the power of the gods to make people behave, the fact that the Gods sees all, You cannot hide from the gods.
Any of this sound familiar yet ? Fear and intimidation, The tools of the church and all organised religions, they still use it even today and there are millions stupid enough to still believe it.
It is only understood as God created Man if the God that is being discussed is outside oneself or outside any being/thing. We cannot assume that when man came into existence he did not know his connection to God. Simply because it was a different space and time that we have little or no real knowledge of.
The majorities view today is that God is outside oneself, and separate to our existence. There are a minority however who see it differently. Both views today could be vastly different to the views of the earlier days.
Yes it all sounds familiar and yes much of what you are saying is evident in today's world. When man separates themselves via the mindset from all things then power tripping will come into play.
Unknown has shrunk to 5%? Based on our massive amount of experiments on or around one planet within a gravity well of an unremarkable star in one of millions of galaxies and you believe we know 95%?
Rather like 1+1 = 2 will give you all of general relativity, or one line of one psalm makes you an expert on the bible, or I've mastered a hammer and now I'm a cabinet maker.
We've made some (I believe) fairly good rational predictions that are supported by what we observe. Nothing more.
Real scientific activity is not about attempted proofs - proving is what occurs in philosophy.
The role of science is to explain a possibility that fits known facts. For example we are aware that a physical object such as a rock exists. We can then assume that the rock could have always existed because it has no need for man to look at it in order for it to exist. Of course, we don't "know" this with absolute certainty but it is a rational explanation because it fits known facts to the best of mankind's abilities to know anything. The irrational explanation goes outside of known facts to introduce unknown contingencies into the action - a non-physical being willed all rocks into existence.
On the other hand, an idea like "morality" requires a human decision to define what the word means, and so "morality" could not have always existed as it is dependent upon mankind for its definition and therefore could not have existed prior to man.
It is therefore confusing and meaningless to discuss those things which are known to be real objects (rocks) by using the same word to describe things that required mankind's input (morals, laws, love, etc.)
A rock and morality cannot be said to exist in the same fashion - an independent object like a rock could possibly have always existed, but morality is dependent and could not have existed without mankind.
It then becomes irrational to claim morality is eternal because mankind is not eternal. From a rational perspective, only physical objects have the capacity to possibly be eternal.
This is the reason science separates concepts like morality from objects such as rocks with a precise definition of exist - for something to exist it has to be independent of man and it must be a rational claim.
Otherwise, the claim is irrational, a positing of magic as reality.
If we replaced willed with evolved would that be introducing unknown contingencies in your view?
The power of words can often cause us to miss what another points to. Kinda like…if I am pointing to the moon do you see my fingers or the moon… type thing? Cannot remember the cliché but it fits to make a point.
Agree with much of what you say in the rest of your post.
Sorry to take so long to answer.
Using evolved makes no difference - it is matter, regardless of form, that is possibly eternal. There are two mechanism of changing the shape of matter: 1) matter physically interacting with other matter (think sperm and ova, comet and jupiter) and, 2) magic (willing by a supernatural force).
#1 is rational. #2 is irrational.
Until it can be shown that #2 is a rational proposition, #1 must be the default.
Consider Evolution by Natural Selection. This is an example of #1, matter acting upon matter to increase complexity of life
Consider Intelligent Design: This is an example of #2, an unknown "x" magically caused complexity.
#2 is philosophy - an "it might be possible" premise.
#1 is rationality - we can reason from known to discern a rational possibility.
#1 is the best mankind can hope to accomplish.
Agree and #1 is what introduces us to the unknown. Our discoveries of evolution by natural selection is an example.
(Agree and #1 is what introduces us to the unknown.)
Study of nature indeed leads to more puzzles - but there is no known correlation between unknowns and mysticism, and there is certainly no known causal linkage.
At the point of new puzzle, we begin the process of hypothesizing, i.e., developing a non-contradictory set of circumstances that we assume (not find or know) is in keeping with reality.
We then theorize as to how these actions may be possible using only rational actions and rational actors - and as long as there are no contradictions, the theory is considered a valid explanation.
That is why it is a misnomer to call Newton's Gravitational Model a theory, as Newton did not explain why but brilliantly described mathematically what occured. Understanding the what helps us get to the moon and back (technological advancement) but it does nothing to explain why and how it happens (theory).
A Troubled Man,
The theory you propose in your first statement here is not one I believe. I am trying to theorize how energy works too. I just haven't rejected the notion that there was purposed intent involved.
Just so I'm clear, I am not at all tied to the notion that a hypothetical creator has any of the attributes assigned to it by religion. I don't think of a creator as un or supernatural, I don't imagine one as necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. I don't think of this creator as a personal god who answers my prayers, who punishes my behaviour and supervises my thoughts.
I am content with the notion that a creator (if one exists) is completely unaware of our existence.
Religious writings are about humans trying to understand morality and philosophy in an environment from which the scientific method was absent, or politically dangerous. Superstition, fear and constant death from disease or violence the norm.
The best science could do when the bible was being written was that there were four elements and the universe stopped at the sphere of the stars. Of course it made sense that god stood outside of creation then, creation was observably small.
My only contention is that, to me, the structure present in the universe is a strong indicator of some intent. I have no notion of what that intent is, or whether or not that intent is being or can be accomplished.
I find the notion of intended an easier frog to swallow than it just happened spontaneously. Neither makes sense to me alone and I believe the 'truth' is probably somewhere in between them.
I don't think there is any compelling reason to believe that the creator could see billions of years into the future and know what was going to occur. Certainty is for the dead. A creative process is not one that knows what is going to occur. It is a process that has an idea and makes attempts.
And fails. Often. A creator may not even know what they are attempting to accomplish until they find it.
The notion of an omnipotent creator is a notion created by humans who want to feel someone is in control especially when they themselves are not. I have no respect for an omnipotent being, because everything is then a matter of choice for that being and we are merely slaves. This slave does not wish to 'worship' the master. (no science there. pure emotion on my part)
I don't know what caused the universe to be, what (if anything) is 'outside' of it and I certainly don't understand the mechanisms that drive the processes we can observe.
"They occurred exactly as they should have occurred, and we are the result."
This statement implies intent. 'Should' means 'plan to, intend to, or expect to'
Was the asteroid an accident? Could be. Was it intended? Could be. It won't be long before we could do such a thing with our own technology if we chose. (steer an asteroid into collision course with a planet populated by creatures unable to even detect it.)
Bottom line is, while I don't think any religion can hold up to what we can observe (what we observe is sooo much larger and grander than any religion), I also don't believe that science rules out purposed intent.
Maybe we are just a biproduct. Maybe life wasn't part of the scheme at all.
So, what you're saying is a theory spawned from thinking is not one you would believe. Well, so much for that.
That's too bad, belief over thinking seems to rule your world.
No, it does not mean that. It means that the laws of our universe are working the way they work.
Logic, reasoning and thinking would rule it out, easily.
"So, what you're saying is a theory spawned from thinking is not one you would believe. Well, so much for that."
Pretty sure I didn't say that or even imply that. Care to elaborate?
Not sure what the 'that's too bad . . .' is referring to.
Clearly YOU didn't mean that, but it is the simple dictionary definition of 'should'
The depth of this intellectual offering eludes me as well.
Then try using this logic, reasoning and thinking in this discussion rather than posing questions to me with intent to tell me you think I'm an idiot.
You aren't making any case for your position. You're simply asking a question and then deriding the answer. You consider your case proven and thus in no need of discussion. This is precisely the response of someone who thinks the bible is the literal truth.
Anything else to offer? Any of this powerful logic you wish I would use?
(I find the notion of intended an easier frog to swallow than it just happened spontaneously)
Intended versus spontaneous both are explanations of creation. Out of curiosity, why do you limit yourself to only creation events? How do you account for creation ex nihilo in this dichotomy?
In other words, why do you rule out eternal as a potential?
Actually I don't, with regards to matter. I admit that the notion of eternal is also a frog that doesn't go down easy for me. But I think it is possible that matter has always existed, but has been molded to a purpose for this particular universe.
Creation from nothing. . .equally hard to swallow, whether intended or not.
I'm toying with the notion that eternal is the reality, but would add the possibility that the eternal matter is itself sentient, and our observable universe is only the current manifestation of that sentience.
Still trying to work that one out though. Only a notion at this point.
Hey guys I realize this is incredibly disruptive but. I'm surprised I'm not seeing this kind of thinking around the place. Obviously I didn't collect these quotes but I didn't really have to for them to be understood and for my idea to be expressed.
www.globalmensgroup.com – need growth? 1
How to Study the Bible – 2
God Himself will Teach You!
If the Bible is true and God really did write it - LET HIM TEACH YOU!!
The Bible is ‘interactive’ … as you move through it, it will move through you. God said, “My
Word be that goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish
what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it – Isaiah 55:11.
If God is the truly the Author, let Him bring the Book to ‘life’ by listening to His teaching in Your
heart. The Bible is a relationship-book … God makes it personal, very personal to You!
1. God will instruct you with His own voice.
Deuteronomy 4:36 “Out of heaven He let you hear His voice, that He might instruct
Nehemiah 9:20 “You gave Your good Spirit to instruct them.”
2. the Lord will teach you in the way you should go … and will guide you.
Psalm 25:12 “Who is the man that fears the LORD? Him shall He (God) teach in the
way He chooses.”
Psalm 32:8-9 “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will
guide you with My eye. Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no
understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not
come near you.”
Psalm 81:8-13 "Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you if you will listen to Me!
I am the LORD your God, open your mouth wide, and I will fill it. Oh, that My people
would listen to Me!”
Psalm 94:9-12 “He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye,
shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches
man knowledge? The LORD knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. Blessed is
the man whom You instruct, O LORD, and teach out of Your law.”
Isaiah 2:3 “Many people shall come and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain
of the LORD, He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths’."
Micah 4:2 “Many nations shall come and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain
of the LORD, to the house of God; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His
3. the Lord God, His Spirit, & His Servant will teach you to profit (succeed).
Isaiah 48:12-17 "’Listen to Me My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last.
Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched
out the heavens;
All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! … I, even I, have spoken. Come near to Me,
hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I
was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me (the Servant/Messiah).’
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, ‘I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to
profit, who leads you by the way you should go’.”
www.globalmensgroup.com – need growth? 2
How to Study the Bible – 2 cont.
God Himself will Teach You!
4. Jesus Christ taught us through His example and teaching … He opened our
understanding of the Scriptures.
Matthew 23:8-10 Jesus said, “But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your
Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father;
for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is
your Teacher, the Christ.”
Luke 24:25-32,45 Then Jesus said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to
believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these
things and to enter into His glory?"
And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He (Jesus) expounded to them in all the
Scriptures the things concerning Himself …
They said to one another, ‘Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on
the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?’
And He (Jesus) opened their understanding that they might comprehend the
Ephesians 4:21-24 ”If indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him
(Christ), as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct,
the old man … and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, that you put on the new man
which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”
5. The Holy Spirit our Helper teaches us all things … the deep things of God and
the things that have been freely given to us by God.
John 14:26 “Jesus said, ‘But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I
said to you’.”
1 Corinthians 2:10-13 “But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the
Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things
of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things
of God except the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that
we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we
also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches,
comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
1 John 2:27 “But the Anointing (the Holy Spirit) which you have received from Him
abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but the same Anointing
teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as It has taught
you, you will abide in Him.”
God repeats it over and over again from Old Testatment to New Testament. He
wants to teach you. So, let Him teach you … and then, listen, learn, and live!!
Everyone on all sides should watch this, and consider the message from the late and great Carl Sagan
Atheists spend a lot of time trying to defend that Atheism is not a religion, yet based on what I see on the HP forums, they sure spend a lot of time trying to convert people. Any of you guys ever thought of giving lessons to Mormons and J-W's?
For a while I went door-to-door, and when someone answered I'd say, "No one wanted me to give this to you", and then hand them a blank brochure with empty pages on the inside.
by Peeples 9 years ago
What makes someone who wants to believe in a God incapable?No matter how much I want to be part of the majority my brain just doesn't allow for the belief in a God. What is different about the brains of non believers (or maybe it's just me) that makes me/us incapable of belief even when their is a...
by Phocas Vincent 7 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
by Elizabeth 9 years ago
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology - and I'm an atheist. What I'm offering is an open forum (open to the degree...
by PhoenixV 4 years ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?
by Vapid Maven 10 years ago
So I've been thinking a lot about this lately. I've been involved in a lot of discussions on the lack of any physical evidence to the existence of any god (no matter what the religion)and it is always countered with there is also no physical evidence that a god "does not" exist which is a...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|