Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

OK this is a serious question since I'm seeing more and more topics spring up on the internet, why can't atheist just theist alone? I agree you can debate them if they are trying to shove their faith down your throat, but I think the same holds true for militant atheist shoving their "facts" down the throats of the theists.

The flaw in that is that you're assuming atheists are coming out of the woodwork, debunking a few mis-truths and then buggering off again. This isn't correct. What's actually happening is that someone says "God did this", and other people are saying either "prove it" or "no he didn't, it happened like this, we can illustrate why with science".

There's a clear difference between going out of your way to bombard someone with facts and correcting someone's misinformation.

Science will never prove without doubt that there is no God.

Science isn't obliged to prove that something doesn't exist, only that something does. If science proves that God doesn't exist, it'll be a byproduct of something else and not the main focus of a discovery.

The history of science is littered with facts that were later proved incorrect.

That doesn't make it any less valid in the short term. Think of it as modifying a car - you might have a great car right now, but then the manufacturer might give it a facelift and it becomes better. Scientific theory is the best we have in the moment, but replacing it with another theory just means we have deeper understanding, rather than that we're in a constant state of getting stuff wrong.

Evolution is logical, and evidence supports it. But it's not a fact, it's still a theory as we haven't observed or viewed records of first hand accounts. Fossil records and minor mutations all support it, but there'll never been an irrefutable proof.

All true, but I'm not sure why it needed to be said, since nobody is denying it. It's still an infinitely better theory than "God did it".

Just look at the doubt over the speed of light being the fastest speed a mass can travel. Just recently an experiment has disproved this, but a re-run of the test will be carried out to cover criticisms of the method voiced by others.

That's what science does. Improves. Belief in God remains the same regardless of contradicting evidence.

Since this thread has popped back to the top, I thought I'd spout off a bit on a few ideas that have been bouncing around in my head recently. (And no, I haven't read up on the current discussion above me)

So we start with nothing.... But since that doesn't really work, let's start with something a bit more simple, the big bang.

Anyway, don't waste your time on this if it sounds to deep or just plain over thought.

I'll have a go

Now, as far as we know, life was a byproduct of the big bang (Not directly, but when you boil it down, the big bang is what it all comes down to, so keep that in mind). Now, life, in its most advanced form, is intelligent. In fact, it's so intelligent it practically knows how it all started (Hence, we traced ourselves all the way back to the big bang).

All good up 'till now.

If that's so, wouldn't logic then declare the big bang itself as an intelligent act of some sort?

No. The big bang does what it says on the tin, nothing more.

As far as we know, the big bang was, in simple terms, a massive explosion.

Yep.

And as far as we know, explosions are not intelligent nor are they even living.

Also yep.

So how can something with no intelligence create something that is so intelligent that it can understand what it was?

Righty, the flaw in this is that you're making sound like an explosion happened and BAM there was life. Just like that, snap of the fingers. It misses out the billions of incredibly complex events that then happened over the next several billion years across an absolutely vast area.

It also, incidentally, misses out that there was almost certainly a universe before our own, just very different to ours. The Big Bang is simply something to describe how the universe we currently observe came to be, and it's impossible to observe what came before. How many were before it? Who knows. Turtles all the way down

I'm no physicist so you might want to rope Brian Cox in on this one, but nuclear fission in the big bang took us from a state of only a few elements (mainly hydrogen) to several more. These several more mean increasing instability in the universe. We have gravity dragging elements together. We have more fission. We have stars, which create even more elements as a byproduct of the incredible temperatures. We have billions and billions of years of more and more elements being created from different numbers of protons, electrons and neutrons. You get even more elements from the death of massive stars which also throws matter out into the universe which forms to become other objects over billions more years.

There's a lot going on. You have debris hitting other debris creating immense heat, and the increasing size attracts more and more debris which creates more heat, sustained by radioactive elements and others supply the body with even more elements. A comet hits, the ice melts. It happens again and again. Your planet is starting to take shape, full of different elements.

You've got carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen knocking around. Everything you need for amino acids, in other words. And amino acids are quite helpful in the creation of proteins. Different sequences of these acids in a protein and you have the beginnings of a genetic code, part of the nucleus of basic cells.

Once you've got basic cells you then have runaway life on your hands which adapts to its surroundings - a subject for the Creation vs. Evolution thread, so I won't go any further here.

You might be able to see though why I have issues with the 1. Big Bang happens 2. ... 3. Life appears 4. PROFIT! school of thought. It massively oversimplifies things. All that up there took me yonks to write and even I massively oversimplified the process.

And why?

Good question, but then this is where I feel a lot of theists fall down, which is that there doesn't necessarily need to be a reason for anything. Much of theism involves turning to God for a reason when something happens, rather than just understanding that a lot of what happens in this world and beyond is simple cause and effect.

It sounds simplistic but the answer to "why did the Big Bang happen?" is just "because it did".

"How did the Big Bang happen?" is a much more interesting question IMO, because it's the one we can research and really get our teeth into.

I know this sounds a bit like one of those dumb questions theists pose when they're about to give out in an argument, but it's more complicated than just asking, "So you tell me how the universe started", if you know what I mean.

I wouldn't say it's a dumb question at all, and I hope I've done the answer justice.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I explained this:

For once I agree with Joey.

 

[Joey D]

The flaw in that is that you're assuming atheists are coming out of the woodwork, debunking a few mis-truths and then buggering off again. This isn't correct. What's actually happening is that someone says "God did this", and other people are saying either "prove it" or "no he didn't, it happened like this, we can illustrate why with science".

There's a clear difference between going out of your way to bombard someone with facts and correcting someone's misinformation.

I'm seeing more then just this though, it's not just the debate over the science theories and laws. It's when someone says they believe in God they are called stupid, ignorant, whatever else. I understand the fundamentalist causing a stir and bringing on the debates themselves, but for the average person that accepts there is a God, I see no reason to be the "angry atheist" towards them. They are obviously content in what they believe and don't really care how others do.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm seeing more then just this though, it's not just the debate over the science theories and laws. It's when someone says they believe in God they are called stupid, ignorant, whatever else. I understand the fundamentalist causing a stir and bringing on the debates themselves, but for the average person that accepts there is a God, I see no reason to be the "angry atheist" towards them. They are obviously content in what they believe and don't really care how others do.

If that's the case, then it's a little unfair branding atheists in no different a way than you're assuming theists are branded - that is, all fundamentalist.

The vast majority of debate in this thread has been quite intelligent. Idiots are idiots on both sides of the argument so it's unfair to apply the "angry atheist" tag no differently than you'd apply the "deluded theist" one.

 

[Joey D]

If that's the case, then it's a little unfair branding atheists in no different a way than you're assuming theists are branded - that is, all fundamentalist.

The vast majority of debate in this thread has been quite intelligent. Idiots are idiots on both sides of the argument so it's unfair to apply the "angry atheist" tag no differently than you'd apply the "deluded theist" one.

Oh I agree, if someone is content with being an atheist and they don't care how you believe I see no problem with that. They shouldn't be forced with fundamentalist stuff either.

And it's more then just this thread though, I see it on Facebook, Reddit, hear discussions at work and so-on.

 

[hampus_dh]

Damn it you got me! How can I lie to you, you know me like the back of your hand, I did come up with it in my head, to be honest I did it in the last five minutes.

And again you dodge the questions.
They are very simple questions on how you got to the conclusion that a god exist.

I explained this:

you have explained ZERO.
You have basically let us know that you wanted to live another life and that you have found weird stuff with science.

We have asked what and you then failed to answer any of them.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And again you dodge the questions.
They are very simple questions on how you got to the conclusion that a god exist.

I only answered the way you wanted me too...oh dear did I not do that right. See it is a discussion, not you say your opinion and that is the end all end all. I mean all you've done is say we're wrong but given no true rebuttle as to why, Joey gave you why and that was his explanation now if it isn't the one you like that is your issue but that is what Joey has come to.

Not sure what your hate is all about.

 

[Touring Mars]

Evolution is logical, and evidence supports it. But it's not a fact, it's still a theory as we haven't observed or viewed records of first hand accounts. Fossil records and minor mutations all support it, but there'll never been an irrefutable proof.

Perhaps we should take this to the appropriate thread, but I don't accept this statement as much as the others have thus far. Evolution is a fact and a theory - and a real scientific theory at that (and not a mere hypothesis). It is supported by a vast quantity of other facts and evidence. You say 'it's still a theory' as if it might not be some time in the future... but it will always be a theory, just as atomic theory will always be atomic theory. Theories don't graduate into being facts - a theory is an over-arching explanation, consistent with a set (or indeed many sets) of facts and evidence.

No one piece of evidence can possibly be 'irrefutable proof' of evolution, but think of it this way - there are many, many ways that evolution could be refuted, even by a single piece of evidence. That's really how theories work - so long as they are formed through evidence and the scientific method in the first place, then they can be considered as factual themselves until proved otherwise by the existence of refuting evidence. But in order to attain this level of acceptance, the theory itself must be built on the basis of actual evidence that really exists - the fossil record, anatomical comparisons and genetics and heredity etc. - and not mere 'ideas', 'concepts' or hypotheses. Evolution is such a theory, and its veracity is confirmed on a daily basis by many completely disparate lines of research that (uncoincidentally) all reach the same conclusion.

Incidentally, a genuine scientific theory cannot be irrefutable by definition. There will never be a piece of evidence that 'seals the deal' for evolution or any other scientific theory for that matter. But what gives it real strength is its resillience in spite of its susceptibility to refutation - it could be easily refuted, but it hasn't been.

 

[TJC_69]

I refuse to vote in this poll.
This thread is very insulting to me.

And just for the record...
I always have and always will...

So, in other words, your first post isn't acceptable. Sure, your entitled to you own views/opinions, but dont dont just splurt out garbage that will upset others.

Your post: "I dont, never have and never will."
Could have been said as: "I simply don't, and dont think i will in the future", instead, you come out with a VERY provocative comment.

I don't see what you're saying here . Is the problem maybe that you are so deeply into religion , that you cannot accept that other people refuse to accept your belief system & your God?

You just said the same statement in reverse yes ? " Always have , always will.... " So I take it that the OP's statement is insulting , but yours isn't ? Even though you just said the same thing ?

Hypocritical..... much?

 

[Joey D]

you have explained ZERO.
You have basically let us know that you wanted to live another life and that you have found weird stuff with science.

We have asked what and you then failed to answer any of them.

That is my explanation on why I believe in God, if you don't like it then I don't know what to tell you, I don't think I can make it clearer. And I'm not claiming it as proof God exists, all I'm saying is that's what led me to believe in a supernatural being.

 

[hampus_dh]

I only answered the way you wanted me too...oh dear did I not do that right. See it is a discussion, not you say your opinion and that is the end all end all. I mean all you've done is say we're wrong but given no true rebuttle as to why, Joey gave you why and that was his explanation now if it isn't the one you like that is your issue but that is what Joey has come to.

Not sure what your hate is all about.

No you havent answered me at all, thats the problem.

And the explanation was not really an explanation of anything more then the fact that he did not like his life.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No you havent answered me at all, thats the problem.

And the explanation was not really an explanation of anything more then the fact that he did not like his life.

That's not the point he was trying to make really, but okay if that's the route you're going to go. Also it's not that he didn't like his life it wasn't helping toward him being productive in answering his universal questions, which in turn led him to see a possibility of a god existing. I don't see it as a big deal, if that's why he believes god. What I do see as a big deal is you attacking him for his explanation and not liking it because it has no scientific rhetoric or doesn't answer it in the unknown way you want it answered.

 

[High-Test]

absolutly Not

There are many differences between the attributes of God and Allah. First, there is the attribute of knowability, the idea that human beings may know God and enjoy a personal relationship with the Creator. God, as He is revealed in the Bible, allows Himself to be known and fellowshipped with on a personal basis by those who have trusted in Him through His Son Jesus Christ. John 17:3 says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." The Bible presents God as a Being who intimately reveals Himself to man, and who encourages us to learn of Him and enter into ever closer fellowship with Him. The Bible presents a God who had a personal relationship with Abraham such that Abraham was called "The friend of God." The God of the Bible wants for mankind to come to Him, be cleansed of their sins, and enjoy this close personal fellowship. "Draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." (James 4:8)

I could not disagree any more vehemently.

Having a close, personal relationship with God as you have described presupposes a series of extraordinary claims. By making the claim that you have a close, personal relationship with God, and arguing that Christianity offers everyone the ability to have this same relationship; you assert the following premises:

1.) That you know intimately the nature of God's existence.
a.) That you know exactly why God allows certain things to happen.
b.) That you can easily explain God's nature to another.
2.) That you know the nature of the creation of the universe.
a.) That you can explain accurately the nature of creation to another.
3.) That every living Christian can attain the knowledge of all of the above in this lifetime.


These premises invalidate commonly held beliefs about the nature of God.

1.) How can anyone fully comprehend the nature of God? God is essentially a being that exists outside of time and space. If God is to have created the universe out of nothing, then God must exist (at the very least) outside of space.
The claim that one can intimately know the nature of God's existence supposes that a mere seventy kilogram passenger on an Oblate Spheroid screaming around a yellow star at 67,500 miles per hour can figure out God's history; essentially stating that one can know God just as well as one's best friend - their fears, what makes them tick, their secrets, etc.
The awesome, terrifying power of God is what calls many to worship. However, in stating that one can have an intimate fellowship with God, you make the claim that one understands God's power. If humankind can know God and God's power on an intimate basis, then humankind can replicate God's power. And I've yet to see a mere Ram's horn that can level cities, weather control devices, chariots of fire, and talking donkeys.

Do you presume to tell us that you know why things happen the way they do? The whole reasoning for religion is to answer those questions that cannot be answered by the tools of the day. Indeed, religion has been at an interesting crossroads since the rise of enlightenment. Yet it still remains that people turn to religion to answer those questions that science cannot answer. "Why am I here?" "What happens after I die?" "What is responsible for the existence of the Universe?" If an average person can have the intimate relationship with God that you have described, and comprehend why things happen the way that they do; then there is no longer any need for Religious practices. If anyone can can attain such a fellowship with the ineffable, then humanity would have moved past religious disputes long ago - What reason do we have for the details when we all know the big picture?

Can one accurately describe the attributes and nature of something one has never seen?

Do you presume to know the nature of the creation? Can you explain exactly how it happened?

.
Wow dude you really have it all twisted im sorry to here that. I think you need to really study the bible for what its worth. I am seeing that this thread is pointless no one is going to convince someone otherwise but its all good> whatever I say to argue isnt going to matter in here anyways lol. meh

Wow, what an eloquent defense of your assertions.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I could not disagree any more vehemently.

Having a close, personal relationship with God as you have described presupposes a series of extraordinary claims. By making the claim that you have a close, personal relationship with God, and arguing that Christianity offers everyone the ability to have this same relationship; you assert the following premises:

1.) That you know intimately the nature of God's existence.
a.) That you know exactly why God allows certain things to happen.
b.) That you can easily explain God's nature to another.
2.) That you know the nature of the creation of the universe.
a.) That you can explain accurately the nature of creation to another.
3.) That every living Christian can attain the knowledge of all of the above in this lifetime.


These premises invalidate commonly held beliefs about the nature of God.

1.) How can anyone fully comprehend the nature of God? God is essentially a being that exists outside of time and space. If God is to have created the universe out of nothing, then God must exist (at the very least) outside of space.
The claim that one can intimately know the nature of God's existence supposes that a mere seventy kilogram passenger on an Oblate Spheroid screaming around a yellow star at 67,500 miles per hour can figure out God's history; essentially stating that one can know God just as well as one's best friend - their fears, what makes them tick, their secrets, etc.
The awesome, terrifying power of God is what calls many to worship. However, in stating that one can have an intimate fellowship with God, you make the claim that one understands God's power. If humankind can know God and God's power on an intimate basis, then humankind can replicate God's power. And I've yet to see a mere Ram's horn that can level cities, weather control devices, chariots of fire, and talking donkeys.

Do you presume to tell us that you know why things happen the way they do? The whole reasoning for religion is to answer those questions that cannot be answered by the tools of the day. Indeed, religion has been at an interesting crossroads since the rise of enlightenment. Yet it still remains that people turn to religion to answer those questions that science cannot answer. "Why am I here?" "What happens after I die?" "What is responsible for the existence of the Universe?" If an average person can have the intimate relationship with God that you have described, and comprehend why things happen the way that they do; then there is no longer any need for Religious practices. If anyone can can attain such a fellowship with the ineffable, then humanity would have moved past religious disputes long ago - What reason do we have for the details when we all know the big picture?

Can one accurately describe the attributes and nature of something one has never seen?

Do you presume to know the nature of the creation? Can you explain exactly how it happened?

I have to agree with this, though the weather control device bit I can't agree with but that is for more one on one than thread discussion and has nothing to do with god of the bible but military devices and stuff for why I believe in that type of tech.

 

[TJC_69]

I have to agree with this, though the weather control device bit I can't agree with but that is for more one on one than thread discussion and has nothing to do with god of the bible but military devices and stuff for why I believe in that type of tech.

I agree with High-Test also , he makes some excellent points in his post .

 

[hampus_dh]

which in turn led him to see a possibility of a god existing.

First of all, im not attacking anyone.
Im asking simple questions, none of which has been answered except you now just slightly.

OK so we can conclude that this god was made up in his head because of questions in science that either was mysterious or had no explanation, right?

If yes ill ask again, what was these weird things that made him turn to this god?

See if you or him could answer that question.

 

[boomee]

like i said you got it twisted eloquent or not if you have questions and truly want to know more about God then read the bible its what I have stated to do I don't claim to have all the answers but I was made by chance you were not made by chance my friends if you believe that well that may truly be a different type of faith misguided non the less

 

[hampus_dh]

like i said you got it twisted eloquent or not

You are a Christian through and through right?

Do you believe every word in the bible?
If yes, i have another question for you.

you were not made by chance my friends if you believe that well that may truly be a different type of faith misguided non the less

Misguided? It's not faith, it's evidence/reality/science.

You and me come from stars. That's not faith, that's cold hard facts.

The atoms in our body can only be created inside a star.
Stars die so you and me can exist.
The atoms in your left arm probably came from another star then the atoms in your right arm.

 

[boomee]

Yes I believe the word of God and I believe that God created us all of us

 

[Sam48]

Righty, the flaw in this is that you're making sound like an explosion happened and BAM there was life. Just like that, snap of the fingers. It misses out the billions of incredibly complex events that then happened over the next several billion years across an absolutely vast area.

Hence why I stated "boils down to".

It also, incidentally, misses out that there was almost certainly a universe before our own, just very different to ours.

They have evidence of that?

You might be able to see though why I have issues with the 1. Big Bang happens 2. ... 3. Life appears 4. PROFIT! school of thought. It massively oversimplifies things. All that up there took me yonks to write and even I massively oversimplified the process.

The question isn't really, 'Where did life come from?'. It's, 'Where does intelligence come from?' And why does intelligence exist at all? Because intelligence is much more than just living, it's understanding. As if life in its un-intelligent form was complex enough.

 

[hampus_dh]

Yes I believe the word of God and I believe that God created us all of us

Ok so every word is believed.
The bible claims the world rests on pillars.

Where are these pillars?

 

[homeforsummer]

Hence why I stated "boils down to".

And I'm saying that "boils down to" is an oversimplification. When you simplify something too much then you're encouraged towards thinking of a simpler solution to a problem - like God, for example.

They have evidence of that?

It's another theory, and it's certainly not unlikely. Supernovas all across the universe show that enormous explosions can happen when matter reacts to certain situations. The Big Bang could equally have been caused by an instability in whatever was there before what we observe today.

The question isn't really, 'Where did life come from?'. It's, 'Where does intelligence come from?' And why does intelligence exist at all? Because intelligence is much more than just living, it's understanding. As if life in its un-intelligent form was complex enough.

Again, it's just cause and effect. The presence of intelligent life in a near infinite universe is no less unlikely than the presence of life at all, or even the lack of life. At one point on our own planet there would not have been intelligent life, but that's what evolution does.

It can't be overstated that we're dealing with a sequence of processes billions of years long that's come to a bunch of people discussing the existence of God on an internet forum. When you talk in such massive numbers, virtually anything is possible.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

Ok so every word is believed.
The bible claims the world rests on pillars.

Where are these pillars?

You haven't saw them? There about 3 miles underground, they are the only thing keeping lava from destroying the outer crust! [/Non Believer Sarcasm]

 

[hampus_dh]

*crickets*

You haven't saw them? There about 3 miles underground, they are the only thing keeping lava from destroying the outer crust! [/Non Believer Sarcasm]

No must have missed those whean i read about how the earth really was formed over billions of years

 

[Pyle_PMG]

*crickets*



No must have missed those whean i read about how the earth really was formed over billions of years

Yeah, that joke sucked... Sorry.

 

[High-Test]

like i said you got it twisted eloquent or not if you have questions and truly want to know more about God then read the bible its what I have stated to do I don't claim to have all the answers but I was made by chance you were not made by chance my friends if you believe that well that may truly be a different type of faith misguided non the less

We're sorry, the method you have chosen to back up your claims is invalid or no longer in service. Please check your facts and try again.


How did I get it twisted?

You're doing wonders for the legitimacy of devout believers by simply burying your head into the sand and telling people that they are wrong without giving any reasoning to support the assertion.

 

[hampus_dh]

Yeah, that joke sucked... Sorry.

the crickets thing was not for you

 

[cullenand]

Right, but it isn't "every video", it's just one, and only 6.5 minutes. I suggest that's just an excuse for the fear of having your favourite assertion being demolished.

Or maybe, now Im just taking a shot in the dark here, its because I really dont have time to watch every video posted.

 

[Tic Tach]

You know Tic Tac it's just amazing that you can not comment on any other thread in GTP but as soon as this one becomes active again, BAM you're here.

a) Why is that "amazing"?

b) It's not that I "can't comment" on any other thread, it's just that I don't. I have a life other than video games, and I'm still stuck in the old GT4. Ancient history to you guys, and I only play it once in a while.

c) If I did make numerous comments on other threads, how would that change anything? I suggest that you're just belly-aching.

Wow, you must have light a batman signal for this one thread.

It's called "instant email notification". Do you not use or aware of that function?

You're personal fight to abolish religion or the idea of god in the minds of people is quite intollerant

a) It's not a "personal fight", it's a conversation on a forum where the topic is god belief. What would you expect - how to use the gas & brake at the same time in corners?

b) Your claim of "intollerance" is amusing. If baseless and false beliefs are debunked, please explain how this is intollerant. Ironically, it seems like it is you who are intollerant of intellectual honesty and calling a spade a spade.

....and extreme which is ironic since you're using the symbol of religious extremist to paint the whole town red, in which I mean a small section as the majority.

No I am not. I know fully well that the majority of god-believers have no intention of being extremist or violent (I was one myself), but the habit of refusing to bring such beliefs under crtiticism really does give cover for the extremists. They wouldn't be able to function unless they had a massive, invisible background support of god-believers. After all, they hold the same beliefs, just a little crazier.

I guess since the black panthers and weather man group were domestic terrorist on the Left all liberals or democrats are domestic terrorist. Or since the the OKC bombing was due to right winged extremist, I guess all Republican and conservatives are out to blow up federal buildings. Gee I don't know why the whole world hasn't been thinking like you...Oh wait I do know why cause that's why Hilter did what he did.

I need not reply to this. You've hung yourself quite handily.

 

[Tic Tach]

Or maybe, now Im just taking a shot in the dark here, its because I really dont have time to watch every video posted.

It's 6.5 minutes. You have the time. You are making excuses.