Do you believe in God?

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Okay, but which (whose?) Bible is it? You do realize that some Christian Bibles consist of 66 books, while other Christian Bibles consist of 81? With other numbers in between for various sects?

There is no doubt more book of the OT written as they are mention in the NT. Just how many chapters of genealogies and Israel history do you want to read? The OT books that were included had something unique and useful that other books didn't provide. Jonah for example reveals resurrection as well the first missionary.
The book of Esther has never been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls nor is God name directly mention in that book. It's a history book so why was it included? There is no other book in the OT that showed the providence of God more clearly than Esther.

 

[funkyDucks]

The one thing that troubles me about God is the "Prodigal Son". In this we are shown that God will take us back if we ever go bad - Which is good to know- but the son that stayed by his fathers side got no special treatment.
What I wonder is, those people who go to mass at christmas only, have just as much change of making it to heaven as us the ones who go weekly.It gives me no motivation to keep up going every week.
Can anyone help me understand this?

 

[TankAss95]

The one thing that troubles me about God is the "Prodigal Son". In this we are shown that God will take us back if we ever go bad - Which is good to know- but the son that stayed by his fathers side got no special treatment.
What I wonder is, those people who go to mass at christmas only, have just as much change of making it to heaven as us the ones who go weekly.It gives me no motivation to keep up going every week.
Can anyone help me understand this?

Judgement is a very hard topic to understand (for me). I would recommend you looking at C. S. Lewis's book, Mere Christianity. You don't have to buy it, you can find the audio book on YouTube. One of the chapters is Christian behaviour, you may find answers there.

 

[CSLACR]

The one thing that troubles me about God is the "Prodigal Son". In this we are shown that God will take us back if we ever go bad - Which is good to know- but the son that stayed by his fathers side got no special treatment.
What I wonder is, those people who go to mass at christmas only, have just as much change of making it to heaven as us the ones who go weekly.It gives me no motivation to keep up going every week.
Can anyone help me understand this?

Because if sinners couldn't convert, the religion would die. Since men wanted their religion to prosper, they decided forgiveness must become a staple part of it.
The faithful son, or followers get nothing. They get the same as the guy that lives a life of sin and fun, accepting Jesus on his deathbed.

But if you missed out on things for not being a Christian for part or most of your life, newcomers would be less accepting of the cult. When they learn they can hop in and get full benefits, they're much more likely to join the crusade.
It's a simple recruitment tactic. Whether you believe made by God or man, it's completely unjust, and there's no defense for it, by any definition of "fairness".

It'd be like a new F1 driver joining and racing the last race of the F1 season, and being handed a co-championship trophy with Vettel. Total BS by all of mankind's definitions, except in this one circumstance, people accept it because "God said so".

 

[Sach]

Because if sinners couldn't convert, the religion would die. Since men wanted their religion to prosper, they decided forgiveness must become a staple part of it.

Source?

It's a simple recruitment tactic. Whether you believe made by God or man, it's completely unjust, and there's no defense for it, by any definition of "fairness".

Unjust, on what grounds?

It'd be like a new F1 driver joining and racing the last race of the F1 season, and being handed a co-championship trophy with Vettel. Total BS by all of mankind's definitions, except in this one circumstance, people accept it because "God said so".

Evidence indicating that the standards by which salvation operates are not those of men, but those of God.


Edit: And furthermore, you misunderstand a crucial point of the salvation discussed in Christianity. Not a single person deserves it. 'Good' people don't get to go to heaven.

 

[TankAss95]

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

Does the atheist find life a bit weird, but amazing? How can he even consider that everything is just by accident?

 

[orimarc]

Well, we're too busy enjoying the good things of life. Also, EVERYTHING IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. It's probability.

Let me explain: imagine an enormous roulette, with millions of numbers. Given enough time, you could land a spin on any number. Life is the same: given enough space and time, it appeared on one point in the universe.

You have to realize that the universe is REALLY DAMN BIG. It's literally EVERYTHING that exists. And it's existed for BILLIONS of years. Is that enough space and time for you?

 

[Liquid]

Food for thought

The equal toleration of all religions... is the same thing is atheism

Christ rode on an ass, now asses ride on Christ

The last Christian died on the cross

We can discuss religion and god until the cows come home but at the end of the day, all we can do is tolerate the fact that we all have different views and opinions. I don't believe in God and am wholly unspiritual in every sense; there's no such thing as a soul, heaven, hell, afterlife and so on. You choose to believe in those things? Great! Whatever keeps you smiling. I do have problems with atheists who try to debunk religion to the extent that they try to embarrass the followers of said religion. If it ends up that the Bible is just a book from which we can find some good morals to live by, what's wrong with that? Okay, some poetic licence with the 'God inventing everything' parts but overall, if these scriptures make people feel good about themselves then let them be. They can choose to believe what they want.

At the same time, I do have problems with theists who insist that everybody must follow the same as them. That's where there must be a line drawn. For example, anybody who claims to know what happens after death is a liar or a fool or both. I'm pretty sure most religions teach you to be tolerant of the rest of the population, non-believers or not. As Muhammad said himself;

Seek knowledge, even if it be in China

Which is a mantra that suggests that Islam might not hold all the answers and that we must learn to broaden our horizons and not be so high up on the pedastol as to dismiss the opinions of others.

Today's Religion is tomorrow's Mythology

Perhaps, but the Romans seemed quite content believing that the Planets were deieties. It kept them happy and they built one of the greatest empires in history. And the ancient Greek society is the foundation of the entire western world.

And when it's all said and done;

There is only one religion, though there are a hundred different versions of it

 

[Sach]

Well, we're too busy enjoying the good things of life. Also, EVERYTHING IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. It's probability.

Let me explain: imagine an enormous roulette, with millions of numbers. Given enough time, you could land a spin on any number. Life is the same: given enough space and time, it appeared on one point in the universe.

You have to realize that the universe is REALLY DAMN BIG. It's literally EVERYTHING that exists. And it's existed for BILLIONS of years. Is that enough space and time for you?

A flawed perception. Even with an infinite number of years a rock will not become a walking creature. People point at religious people, saying they are coping out with a "God must have done it" answer for everything, but on the other hand people also use billions of years of time as a cop out.

If you are playing roulette with only black and red spaces, you will never land on a white space, despite the number of years you play the game.

 

[Liquid]

If you are playing roulette with only black and red spaces, you will never land on a white space, despite the number of years you play the game.

But on the roulette wheel of life, the universe and everything, there are more than two possibilities. And those possibilities change over time.

It seems to be difficult for many people to accept that the universe is an irrational, disproportionate and seemingly unanswerable place. Where is the guarentee or receipt that says that everything is explainable? Everything being explainable is a human construct so we can rationalise our existance and our relationship with the world around us.

Some things we will perhaps never know; don't lose sleep over it. Once you die you cease to be and to function; aren't existentialism and self-awareness such drags?

 

[homeforsummer]

A flawed perception. Even with an infinite number of years a rock will not become a walking creature.

Yes and no.

Given the way in which life works on this planet, many of the atoms which make up your body have probably been rocks at some point in earth's history. Or a dinosaur. Or a tree, some mud or a dung beetle.

Said rock wouldn't literally change into a person over an infinite amount of time, but the rock itself wouldn't last an infinite amount of time and it's constituent particles could well be part of a person in the future.

I think it's quite funny that people have this desire to believe they're part of something bigger in this world, often causing them to seek religion - and yet every atom in their body has once been part of something bigger - our planet. And ultimately, a star, and maybe even a star before that too.

 

[TankAss95]

Well, we're too busy enjoying the good things of life. Also, EVERYTHING IT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT. It's probability.

Let me explain: imagine an enormous roulette, with millions of numbers. Given enough time, you could land a spin on any number. Life is the same: given enough space and time, it appeared on one point in the universe.

You have to realize that the universe is REALLY DAMN BIG. It's literally EVERYTHING that exists. And it's existed for BILLIONS of years. Is that enough space and time for you?

Go and look at the fine tuning of the laws of nature, and even matter itself. If the laws of gravity changed by even a tiny percentage, complex life wouldn't be able to form.

 

[homeforsummer]

Go and look at the fine tuning of the laws of nature, and even matter itself. If the laws of gravity changed by even a tiny percentage, complex life wouldn't be able to form.

I think you're going to need a source with comments like that. Life adapts. While the laws of gravity themselves don't change, at least on Earth, the pull itself changes by a matter of percent across the surface of the Earth (due to the movement of billions of tonnes of mantle moving around in convection currents inside) and yet life goes on. Had Earth been 10 percent larger when it was forming but all other factors been equal, we'd almost certainly have life today, just life better adapted to a planet that would have a slightly stronger gravitational pull by dint of being larger.

Get this into your head, please: The planet hasn't been created "just right" for life, life has adapted to suit the conditions of the planet on which it finds itself.

 

[TankAss95]

I think you're going to need a source with comments like that. Life adapts. While the laws of gravity themselves don't change, at least on Earth, the pull itself changes by a matter of percent across the surface of the Earth (due to the movement of billions of tonnes of mantle moving around in convection currents inside) and yet life goes on. Had Earth been 10 percent larger when it was forming but all other factors been equal, we'd almost certainly have life today, just life better adapted to a planet that would have a slightly stronger gravitational pull by dint of being larger.

Get this into your head, please: The planet hasn't been created "just right" for life, life has adapted to suit the conditions of the planet on which it finds itself.

Found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHodt-7Q7A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Exorcet]

A flawed perception.

Not in the slightest.

Even with an infinite number of years a rock will not become a walking creature.

Wrong on two counts. No theory on the origin of life has rocks turning into dinosaurs, which should be obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a book even glossing over the subject.

Secondly, quantum mechanics gives a very small chance of that actually happening.

People point at religious people, saying they are coping out with a "God must have done it" answer for everything, but on the other hand people also use billions of years of time as a cop out.

God and billions of years are not even close to similar. One is math. Go see how many zeros you need to put between a decimal and a 1 to make something have low enough probability to only have a 50 % chance of a first success with a trial once every second over the span of 10 billion years. It's a lot of zeros.

If you are playing roulette with only black and red spaces, you will never land on a white space, despite the number of years you play the game.

And if you have atoms and a dynamic universe, you're going to get life at some point.

 

[dylansan]

Tankass:
1. You can't make claims and then go looking for sources to back them up. Don't do that.
2. You've made this claim before, I believe, and you were extensively proven wrong.
3. Here's a direct response to that video:


So please don't claim the universe must be fine tuned any more. There didn't have to be a God, and every argument you've used to show that there must be has been shown to be illogical.

When you watch these videos, do you think about the arguments yourself, or just accept it as proof of your own beliefs?

Believe what you want, but until you come up with evidence or an actual logical argument, stop trying to belittle atheists for being satisfied with a universe created by probability.

 

[homeforsummer]

Found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHodt-7Q7A&feature=youtube_gdata_player

A quite significantly flawed video, IMO, for several reasons.

Firstly, there's an interesting "mix" of terminology in the video. When the narrator says things like "not only are these forces finely tuned for our existence" (once again: life adapts to conditions, conditions aren't put there in order to support life) you can't take the video seriously.

I certainly can't take "Philosopher of Science" at Messiah College seriously. Science isn't a philosophy. It ceases to become science. We've had this problem already in this thread, with people asking science to explain why the universe exists, when it can't. Mr. Philosopher of Science attempts to use science to support the theory of a higher power having designed the universe specifically so we can observe it, a theory I don't buy in the slightest. Not least because it's not "theory" in the scientific sense, more "theory" in the "in theory" type sense.

When the video links to a site whose about page says this:

From the expansional rate of the Universe to the location of Earth in the Solar System, from percengates of athmospheric gases to properties of sunlight, innumerous equilibriums are sustained each second and each hour. Not even one of these arrangements may occur by chance. All obey the infallible wisdom of God exhibiting His might and art.This web site displays the evidence for the creation of the Universe and it reveals the eternal might and wisdom of God, who created this great universe from nothingness

...and when Paul Davies, the "scientist" in the glasses featured in the video has a quote like this on the website:

The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power. The big bang was not evidently, any old bang, but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude

(...bearing in mind that we already know the big bang wasn't actually an explosion - a rather fundamental mistake for a scientist to make, don't you think?) the video and site are little more than ill-informed half-way houses between science and religion. And as a "scientist" he should probably be aware too that "The explosive vigour of the universe is thus matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power" is simple physics, rather than magic or design. A star with enormous mass (and therefore gravity) will also burn more violently and brightly, otherwise it wouldn't be a star - there has to be some form of equilibrium, just like there is with a smaller mass star, which burns less violently. It's never total equilibrium anyway, as eventually all stars expend all their energy and die.

The things being said look accurate enough to seem suspiciously genuine, but inaccurate enough for much of what's included to be a pile of rubbish.

As I mentioned above, their statements that small variations in forces would immediately result in zero life are inaccurate. Earth's gravity varies constantly and depending on where you are on the planet, by several fractions of a percent in places. That already debunks the video's theory that the smallest of changes would result in no life, since there already are small changes. Likewise, small fluctuations in our distance from the sun might have caused life to develop differently from the way it has, but wouldn't have prevented it entirely (since we already know that life can live in the extremes of temperature on our planet).

There are other universal constants of course, but the fact we can view them "easily" is just an indication of how our species has developed to discover these things. We already know we don't know everything (so the universe can't be that easy to figure out), and there are places in the universe where the fundamental laws of physics fall apart - black holes, for example. If the universe was so easy for us to understand, why to black holes still stump us?

I'm sorry, but all of that video is tosh.

I don't see why we keep coming back to this either. Why keep trying to bring up these "scientific" justifications for the supposed evidence of intelligent creation, when God's existence cannot be proven, neither by evidence nor by proxy?

Just in case you missed it again: The universe isn't finely tuned for life. Life finely tunes itself to work in the universe.

 

[TankAss95]

Tankass:
1. You can't make claims and then go looking for sources to back them up. Don't do that.
2. You've made this claim before, I believe, and you were extensively proven wrong.
3. Here's a direct response to that video:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg">YouTube Link</a>

So please don't claim the universe must be fine tuned any more. There didn't have to be a God, and every argument you've used to show that there must be has been shown to be illogical.

When you watch these videos, do you think about the arguments yourself, or just accept it as proof of your own beliefs?

Believe what you want, but until you come up with evidence or an actual logical argument, stop trying to belittle atheists for being satisfied with a universe created by probability.

I don't really have enough knowledge of physics to point out any flaws in the argument, I was just pointing out something I thought was worthy of attention.
And I'm not trying to belittle atheists in any way at all, it would be quite foolish to do so as it is mostly atheists in this debate who fairly review my arguments.
I remember someone saying a while back (in this thread) that the belief in a deity was based on your view of the world (or everything). I've always been convinced of a deity of some sort which eventually led me to Christianity, not the other way around. Perhaps you would agree that it is quite unusual that a mindless expansion (big bang) created the laws of nature and the variety of elements we observe today?

And to homeforsummer, I admire the work you have put into your post. I will review the content in detail to the best of my ability.

Thanks.

 

[homeforsummer]

Perhaps you would agree that it is quite unusual that a mindless expansion (big bang) created the laws of nature and the variety of elements we observe today?

Not at all. Firstly, you belittle the concept by describing it as "mindless" just as you do by describing any physical process as mindless. Describing it as such implies that it's somehow inferior to a "designed" universe simply because it followed a set of explainable physical processes.

Secondly, the elements we see today are virtually all the result of two cosmic processes - the creation of stars, and the death of stars. The most common elements are formed from the intense heats and pressures in stars fusing nuclei together to form new elements. Rare elements are formed in supernovas - which is why they're rare, as supernovas are relatively uncommon ways for stars to die.

So no, the range of elements found today isn't particularly unusual.

And to homeforsummer, I admire the work you have put into your post. I will review the content in detail to the best of my ability.

Thanks.

Appreciate it, look forward to hearing your response.

 

[dylansan]

Perhaps you would agree that it is quite unusual that a mindless expansion (big bang) created the laws of nature and the variety of elements we observe today?

No one can make any judgement on whether it's unusual without anything else to compare it to. Unless we witness other big bangs and none of them produce laws of nature, you cannot call it unusual in any meaningful sense. It's interesting, sure, and certainly difficult to understand, but without more data, it's impossible to call it unusual and you can't make any claims about how improbable it is that it happened without either sampling a bunch of other big bangs or understanding in complete detail how big bangs work and how ours created laws of physics, neither of which do we currently know, but both of which Science is currently looking into, despite how difficult it is to do so.

 

[Sach]

Not in the slightest.


Wrong on two counts. No theory on the origin of life has rocks turning into dinosaurs, which should be obvious to anyone who has ever looked at a book even glossing over the subject.

Secondly, quantum mechanics gives a very small chance of that actually happening.

Wrong on two accounts... Number one, I never said that was a theory of the origin of life. I'm saying that a lot of people tend to think that with enough time anything will happen. I gave a scenario where it would not, that is all.

Second, the most intelligent scientists don't even fully understand quantum mechanics, yet people on internet forums constantly make claims as if they understand these things to enough of a degree to make such bold claims.



A rock will never turn into an organic being with a complex series of interconnected systems, no matter how many times you strike it with lightning.

It takes plenty of blind faith to believe something like that, or many of the theories so many people claim to believe by 'logic'.

 

[Encyclopedia]

A rock will never turn into an organic being with a complex series of interconnected systems, no matter how many times you strike it with lightning.

The are other materials in the universe than rock you know.

 

[dylansan]

Second, the most intelligent scientists don't even fully understand quantum mechanics, yet people on internet forums constantly make claims as if they understand these things to enough of a degree to make such bold claims.

What claims? That rocks turn into life? Scientists understand it well enough to use it to make predictions and observations. It's like the number infinity, hard to comprehend, but relatively easy to use in mathematics. And if someone on a forum references actual scientific research (or actually understands the equations) then there's no reason it can't be used as evidence.

A rock will never turn into an organic being with a complex series of interconnected systems, no matter how many times you strike it with lightning.

So what? 2+2 isn't 5, but that doesn't imply it takes blind faith to believe addition is possible.

It takes plenty of blind faith to believe something like that, or many of the theories so many people claim to believe by 'logic'.

Giving an example of one scenario where lots of time does not cause a certain result does not show that it takes faith to believe lots of time can make certain results more likely. And you're complaining about 'logic'. Instead of claiming that because one example of a theory is flawed that many or all others are, you have to actually point out the flaws in the theory itself.

In fact, something interesting happens to rocks over long periods of time that you may not have considered. If you observe a rock, just stare at it for hours, days, years, it's not going to change much, but rocks, over long periods of time, are broken down gradually be erosion, especially in oceans and become pebbles, and finally sand. After staring at that rock, you would not think over any period of time that it would become sand without some great crushing force breaking it into bits, but over long periods of time, the result of many many tiny forces against the rock causes exactly that result.

Long periods of time can cause changes that are immeasurable at much smaller timescales. The thing is, evolution has been observed on small timescales, with small changes, and people still don't accept that large changes can occur (though they have trouble defining "large". Some say a different species is a large change, but that's been observed, so I don't know what other definition there is). Not to mention all the fossils which show clearly a large change over time in many different types of animals.

 

[RBW]

I don't "believe" in God. The word believe means "Accepting as true".

I know he is real. Every day I wake up, and see the sun rise, I know he's real. Every day, as I see the sun go down, I know he's real.

Nothing will ever sway my decision.

For those who think no one loves them, I know someone who does. Jesus. No matter what you do, he would forgive you, and would take you back into his arms. Jesus loves you, and wants you to be with him. But it's your choice.

 

[niky]

Keeping my beliefs aside, if Jesus was actually real, I agree with C. S. Lewis that he was not a good moral teacher. He was either a lier, a lunatic, or the Son of God. A good moral teacher wouldn't lie.

You say that science cannot explain anything. You say that there are only two belief systems, belief in God and belief in the material. Both are patently untrue. Are you a liar, or is this simply your belief based on what you know?

A flawed perception. Even with an infinite number of years a rock will not become a walking creature. People point at religious people, saying they are coping out with a "God must have done it" answer for everything, but on the other hand people also use billions of years of time as a cop out.

If you are playing roulette with only black and red spaces, you will never land on a white space, despite the number of years you play the game.

It's a good thing life was not borne of rocks, which are mostly silicone and other varied minerals. Whoops. Guess that's why it's called carbon-based life.

Time is not a cop-out. The complicated mathematics used in quantum theory are not a cop-out. If you so desire, you can study these things and learn how to analyze and work with the evidence given yourself. It's rather those who don't believe in the findings of science who use the immense complexity of the evidence presented as a reason not to actually study it in-depth.

But then, this isn't the "Creation versus Evolution" thread... and there are no white tiles on this board.

Go and look at the fine tuning of the laws of nature, and even matter itself. If the laws of gravity changed by even a tiny percentage, complex life wouldn't be able to form.

Take it to the other thread.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." &ndash; Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

An opinion and nothing more.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible." - Albert Einstein

Although Einstein did believe in the existence of a God (non-specific), that doesn't relate at all to the discussion.

Does the atheist find life a bit weird, but amazing? How can he even consider that everything is just by accident?

Because not everything in life or the Universe has to have meaning, except that which we give it.

Which is worse, an uncaring Universe that would just as soon kill you in a volcanic explosion or a tsunami because God made it uncaring, or an uncaring Universe that allows us to be killed simply because it is uncaring?

As opposed to humanity, or life, which we know can be caring or uncaring... hostile or good-willed... and we know that people do this (mostly*) of their own choice.

I am perfectly willing to accept an uncaring and sometimes hostile Universe. Simply because I believe that man's purpose is to make sense of it, and, failing that, to impose his own will upon it, for the better.

-

*Mostly in the sense that most people don't have brain damage or chemical imbalances which cause them to view other people as "non-people", as serial killers do. Nor do most people have it programmed into them that those who don't share their religion or philosophy** are either "non-people" or don't count.

**Notably Islamic Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists*** (of various sects), Hindus (to some extent, due to the caste system), Nazi Aryanism / White Supremacists, Marxists, etcetera... such belief systems don't necessarily need to be religions... just belief systems that ignore the value of human life outside a small select group.

***Note that non-Fundamentalists don't share the same views as Fundamentalists.

 

[Sach]

Things taken out of context, and/or with prejudice = 90% of this thread.

I am perfectly willing to accept an uncaring and sometimes hostile Universe. Simply because I believe that man's purpose is to make sense of it, and, failing that, to impose his own will upon it, for the better.

In an uncaring Universe, man would have no 'purpose'. Purpose for man suggests the intentionality of a creator.

 

[Liquid]

Things taken out of context, and/or with prejudice = 90% of this thread.

Things taken out of context, and/or with prejudice = Life.

 

[Exorcet]

Wrong on two accounts... Number one, I never said that was a theory of the origin of life. I'm saying that a lot of people tend to think that with enough time anything will happen. I gave a scenario where it would not, that is all.

Anything will happen with enough time so long as there is a non zero probability of the event in question. Again, this is math.

Second, the most intelligent scientists don't even fully understand quantum mechanics, yet people on internet forums constantly make claims as if they understand these things to enough of a degree to make such bold claims.

The most intelligent scientists don't understand turbulent flow, which is the only thing most jet liners ever see.

The intelligent scientists have figured out that particles act on probability, it's only takes some basic reasoning to see that what we know implies about reality. Saying that a rock can turn into a person spontaneously and on it's own isn't really a bold claim, but claiming that it will happen anytime soon is.

A rock will never turn into an organic being with a complex series of interconnected systems, no matter how many times you strike it with lightning.

Now you're just making it easier. A rock turning into a life form is unlikely, but a rock exposed to energy? Simple chemistry. Rocks are atoms. Life is atoms. All you need to do is change the arrangement.

It takes plenty of blind faith to believe something like that, or many of the theories so many people claim to believe by 'logic'.

I think you're misunderstanding a few things here. Science doesn't operate on faith.

 

[TankAss95]

I don't "believe" in God. The word believe means "Accepting as true".

I know he is real. Every day I wake up, and see the sun rise, I know he's real. Every day, as I see the sun go down, I know he's real.

Nothing will ever sway my decision.

For those who think no one loves them, I know someone who does. Jesus. No matter what you do, he would forgive you, and would take you back into his arms. Jesus loves you, and wants you to be with him. But it's your choice.

I agree 100%

You say that science cannot explain anything. You say that there are only two belief systems, belief in God and belief in the material. Both are patently untrue. Are you a liar, or is this simply your belief based on what you know?

An opinion and nothing more.

Although Einstein did believe in the existence of a God (non-specific), that doesn't relate at all to the discussion.

Because not everything in life or the Universe has to have meaning, except that which we give it.

I said science cannot provide absolute truth. I said that there are two main viewpoints, a naturalistic/materialistic viewpoint or the belief in a deity.

And the idea that nothing has to have meaning isn't a belief (I admit), but hugely controversial. If there is something rather than nothing, and that the something had a beginning, then it's quite natural to assume a meaning to everything. Albert Einstein was the father of modern physics. His opinions deserves to be heard.

Science doesn't operate on faith.

This I don't agree with. To even begin science you have faith that the universe is intelligible and accessible to the human mind. That, and the fact that you must have faith that you can trust what your brain is telling you before you can even do anything.

Scientist: I am here, I exist and can trust my consciousness, and I believe that the universe is intelligible and can be studied.

So scientists are all men of faith.

And homeforsummer, I am keeping your post in mind. 👍

 

[Liquid]

I don't agree that science is reliant on faith. You can have faith in science and choose to trust it and believe in what it can do, but that doesn't mean that science is a faith based thing. Say to yourself with real, genuine conviction;

"I don't believe in gravity. It is a fallacy and an illusion."

Do things start floating in front of you? No they do not. Gravity is not reliant on you believing that it is true.

Also:

And the idea that nothing has to have meaning isn't a belief (I admit), but hugely controversial. If there is something rather than nothing, and that the something had a beginning, then it's quite natural to assume a meaning to everything. Albert Einstein was the father of modern physics. His opinions deserves to be heard.

Meaning is all about interpretation. Just because something did have a beginning, that is not proof that there is a meaning to it. Where is the proof that there is a meaning to it? The fact that something has a beginning therefore it must have meaning is your assumption and your interpretation.

What's the meaning of Stonehenge? That certainly had a beginning and for historical reasons we don't know why it's there or indeed how it was constructed (In before 'Aliens!'). We interpret what it could mean but there's no absolute certainty that it means anything. The blokes who built it could have just done it randomly. I stress could have.