Do you believe in God?

[superbike81]

Do or do not, there is no try.

Very much believe this.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Well, I don't.

 

[huskeR32]

No it isn't. What is indeed telling is the fact is that you refuse to address my point. I'll try to be "simpler" in putting it forward:

I haven't addressed yours because I feel that your point is in it's essence a misinterpretation of my point and indicative of your refusal to respond to mine. But whatever, let's go:

1 - The belief in a legendary beast or in any other form a legendary CREATURE is un-related and un-comparable to the belief in a CREATOR.

But disbelief in all of them is equal. If I ever see evidence for god, I will start believing. At that point I would certainly place more value on god than a unicorn. But until then, the only thing that matters is the lack of evidence for all of them.

2 - The belief in a CREATURE doesn't change anything about the perception of the world, and of ourselves. It's just another companion on this planet (or - if you're talking litle green men from Mars or from any other planet in any other galaxy - in this Universe).

My perception of the world is not changed by my disbelief in any of these. All of them just make me say "I need evidence before I'll buy it." Nothing more to it than that.

What does change is the way theists react to my disbelief in these various things. That's not my problem.

3 - The belief in a CREATOR changes, by the very definition of it, and by the very consequence that it makes us his CREATURES in the true sense of this word (and not a mere result of the passing of time and the evolutionary process) our perception of this world.

The difference between god and the others only affects your perspective in this argument.

With that in mind, you need to recognize that my point is very valid. I addressed yours, now I'd appreciate it if you addressed mine:

Now, are you requiring that I prove that dragons don't exist? No, you're not. Why?

Are you saying I'm ignorant because I don't believe in unicorns? No, you're not. Why?

See what I'm getting at here? You recognize my non-belief in those things as logical, you don't demand that I prove my disbelief (which is a ridiculous demand in any context) and you don't think me ignorant.

If you think about this honestly, you'd have to admit that whether you place extra value on god or not doesn't really matter. For all five beings, I choose not to believe because there's no proof. For four of those five, you recognize that as perfectly logical. For the fifth, that logic is suddenly not good enough. Why?

Fun jokes aside, I'm just (sometimes heatly) debating and - by doing it - saying what I think.

I'm glad you are 👍

 

[superbike81]

I can "try" to kill someone, if they die, I did it, if not, I didn't.

You can "try" to be a good Catholic, but if you aren't successfully doing what your bible tells you to do, you are not being a good Catholic.

 

[Starfirebird]

I see everyone is still butting heads.

I just watched a video the other day by Stephen Hawking that is very interesting and if you understand science it makes a lot of sense.To those who are religious that are interested try watching the whole thing without turning it off from anger.I know you'll be shaking your head through the whole thing,but that's understandable.

Very good video and i plan on getting his book soon to have something good to read.

 

[nitrorocks]

*
Try to be high and mighty somewhere else.
Try that place nere vid ICA.
You have a point, the in your face religious people are the worst.

Worst of all is that the Bible is a sexist woman hating book that says that women shouldn't teach and should instead be quiet.
Some of the stuff from the real bible (old testament) ain't really morally acceptable at all.

* = I don't "believe" in ignore list.

Why dont you do some research and notice that we don't follow the old testament anymore.

 

[Hun200kmh]

@HuskeR32: I understand that, from your point of vue, God and a Unicorn may be entities equally irrelevant because you don't believe in either of them.

However, the "belief" in either of them is relevantly different. Because of the implications of said belief, considering "WHAT" is being believed (a creature; a creator).

So, and so far I think we can agree, you have:

a) An equal disbelief;
b) An unequal belief;

And if you care to read my posts, I speak of the relevance and significance of the belief in a creator.

Its not that I credit the creator with greater intrinsic value. I don't need to, the very concept of a God implies that already. So, it's just the very fact that the belief in a creator is of much more significance - and consequence - than the belief in an animal.

About your quotes, I don't think I ever said that your non-belief was illogical, or that I ever called you ignorant because of your non-belief, or that I ever demanded of you (or anyone else) that you proved your desbelief(?) in the existence of God.

 

[superbike81]

Why dont you do some research and notice that we don't follow the old testament anymore.

Because God's word didn't fit with modern society right?

So what you are reading now isn't actually God's word, it is an interpretation of that word by mortal men written to fit to modern times. We all know what happens when people interpret things differently.

What do you see in this Rorschach ink blot?

Now who is to say the person/people who were in charge of re-writing the new versions of the bible interpreted things exactly as the way God meant them?

 

[nitrorocks]

Because God's word didn't fit with modern society right?

So what you are reading now isn't actually God's word, it is an interpretation of that word by mortal men written to fit to modern times. We all know what happens when people interpret things differently.

What do you see in this Rorschach ink blot?

Now who is to say the person/people who were in charge of re-writing the new versions of the bible interpreted things exactly as the way God meant them?

Because a lot of it are the same People. In the old testament it says you can have tattoos or shave your beard, etc things like that. A lot of silly things like that have been taken out. The way women are treated has been improved. A lot of things have been improved.

 

[Starfirebird]

^I see a Nord with a Dragon Helmet from Skyrim. 👍

 

[superbike81]

Because a lot of it are the same People. In the old testament it says you can have tattoos or shave your beard, etc things like that. A lot of silly things like that have been taken out. The way women are treated has been improved. A lot of things have been improved.

So some of God's word is silly? I don't think he would like you saying that.

Also, how can God's word be improved, when God is perfect?

 

[huskeR32]

About your quotes, I don't think I ever said that your non-belief was illogical, or that I ever called you ignorant because of your non-belief, or that I ever demanded of you (or anyone else) that you proved your desbelief(?) in the existence of God.

You didn't say those things. Somebody else did pages ago, and then didn't make any attempt to follow up on the conversation. You took up part of that discussion, so I just kept recycling my quote. You've been perfectly respectful and enjoyable to debate with 👍

Its not that I credit the creator with greater intrinsic value. I don't need to, the very concept of a God implies that already. So, it's just the very fact that the belief in a creator is of much more significance - and consequence - than the belief in an animal.

The original thing I was driving at (again, with somebody else), was that they were completely misusing the term atheist/atheism, and that irritates me greatly.

Atheists are too often characterized as being closed-minded and arrogant, gleefully bashing god. I was simply trying to show that my reasons for being an atheist are exactly the same as my reasons for not believing in unicorns, dragons, etc. I'm equally indifferent and open-minded towards all of them.

I've never claimed to be 100% convinced that god doesn't exist, or that I wouldn't accept evidence that he does. And atheism, the real definition of atheism, is the same. It's a passive choice to not believe in god without proof. End of story. It's a stance that doesn't require proof. It doesn't even make sense to ask an atheist to prove their stance, because they're not putting forth anything as fact.

Our conversation veered away from that and led to our current misunderstanding. Anyways, \rambling.

 

[CodeRedR51]

^I see a Nord with a Dragon Helmet from Skyrim. 👍

I see a goat.

 

[Exorcet]

Sorry, I missed it entirely.

No problem then, it happens.

But the examples you give are just examples of how you believing in something can make you act wrong. And I understand that people can do wrong things based on religious belief, I won't argue that. But, then again, people can take wrong decisions because of many other factors.

Well, I was trying to make two points with those examples. The first being that any belief can effect your life, the second being that belief in God may not necessarily lead to good if he isn't there. Admittedly, the example used is not something I expect from the theists in this thread doing, but hopefully it's clear that even though God is hypothetically is greater than all those other things, he can cause just as much trouble by not being real.

But, back to my original distinction of relevance in the belief in God (vs. the relative irrelevance of the belief in dragons or unicorns), that it exists is exactly why you, being an atheist, think the religious belief is the most dangerous of all the beliefs in realities you don't believe yourself. Because the religious belief is about the entire person, how she sees herself, how she sees the world around her, and ultimately how she acts and what moral code she tries to follow through her life.

Wouldn't this be applicable to any belief though? If you're Christian yes, God, the one God, is special. But if you're a follower of ancient Greek myths, you might believe that the Fates are pretty serious business since they basically control your life. Or perhaps someone has even less mainstream beliefs and burns money as a sacrifice to a tree somewhere because of a belief that it is watching over him. God, the Fates, and the tree all influence how/what the world really came to be/is even if the latter two didn't create it.

 

[TankAss95]

In this post I would like to address the 'Russell's Teapot' argument (among some other things).
Of all the atheists I see, every one has said that the reason that they don't believe in a God is because that it is non-falsiable. I find this a little confusing, because my belief in God came from a deduction of all my personal knowledge and experience after a considerable amount of time. I hope that after considering this you will understand why I have not responded well to certain arguments brought forward about the lack of evidence for a deity in this thread.
The way I see it, is that God is the ultimate reality behind everything that I observe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the naturalist concludes that the ultimate reality to everything is nature.
It is well known that we can study, and attempt to understand our surroundings. From this we start to ask questions (usually at an early age), and we each conclude our own interpretations, without any loss of intellectual integrity, and in a number of different ways.
Some people 'read' or 'interpret' nature in an atheist way. Others 'read' it in a deistic way, seeing it as pointing to a divine creator who is no longer involved in it's affairs. Others, like myself, take a more specifically Christian view, believing in a God who both creates and sustains nature. Others take a more spiritualised view, speaking more vaguely of some kind of 'life force'.
My point is simple: nature is open to many legitimate interpretations. It can be interpreted in atheist, deist, theist, and many other different ways - but it does not demand to be interpreted in any of these.
After considering this, do you understand why I can't take the point with respect that God is intellectually alike to Santa Clause - or an orbital flying teapot? It is a personal view to the answer: Why something instead of nothing? It is a belief behind everything we know - the origin.
That's how I see it. My belief is based on a deduction I take from experience and knowledge of nature. Parallel to this, I look at the evidence of Jesus Christ and how groups of people said that he appeared to them after he was crucified on the cross. I look at the reaction of people at the time, and how people were willing to join together to make the early Christian Church and were willing to even give up their lives spreading the word of him.

So perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to mock people for their beliefs.

 

[CodeRedR51]

So perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to mock people for their beliefs.

Ditto.

 

[TankAss95]

Ditto.

When have I mocked anyone's beliefs? I have been careful to avoid presenting atheism as a belief, as it seemed to be that that wasn't the case.
Have I mocked any of your beliefs?

 

[dylansan]

Some people 'read' or 'interpret' nature in an atheist way. Others 'read' it in a deistic way, seeing it as pointing to a divine creator who is no longer involved in it's affairs. Others, like myself, take a more specifically Christian view, believing in a God who both creates and sustains nature. Others take a more spiritualised view, speaking more vaguely of some kind of 'life force'.
My point is simple: nature is open to many legitimate interpretations. It can be interpreted in atheist, deist, theist, and many other different ways - but it does not demand to be interpreted in any of these.

Not really. One can interpret nature in many different ways, but it can only be used as evidence for some of those things. Maybe the beauty of the world indicates to you that it was created, but it is not evidence of that. The only way that would be the case is if nature could not be beautiful without being created.

After considering this, do you understand why I can't take the point with respect that God is intellectually alike to Santa Clause - or an orbital flying teapot? It is a personal view to the answer: Why something instead of nothing? It is a belief behind everything we know - the origin.

It's a question that can be answered in many ways, and God is just one of them. As such, the fact that we exist is not evidence that we were created, it's simply consistent with that belief.

That's how I see it. My belief is based on a deduction I take from experience and knowledge of nature. Parallel to this, I look at the evidence of Jesus Christ and how groups of people said that he appeared to them after he was crucified on the cross. I look at the reaction of people at the time, and how people were willing to join together to make the early Christian Church and were willing to even give up their lives spreading the word of him.

So perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to mock people for their beliefs.

People join forces and give their lives for a lot of things, but it doesn't make them right. Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but just look at how the Nazi's reacted to Hitler. Many of them were good people who were just misled and blinded by a sense of national pride. They thought they were helping the country, not committing a horrible atrocity (at least most of them).

See also: The crusades.

 

[TankAss95]

Not really. One can interpret nature in many different ways, but it can only be used as evidence for some of those things. Maybe the beauty of the world indicates to you that it was created, but it is not evidence of that. The only way that would be the case is if nature could not be beautiful without being created.It's a question that can be answered in many ways, and God is just one of them. As such, the fact that we exist is not evidence that we were created, it's simply consistent with that belief.

I understand your point, but after I accepted the notion that everything had a beginning I could see no alternative rather than a deity that would make sense to me.
I look to things like the golden ratio, the structure of material, and most importantly the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind all pointers to the existence of the almighty.

People join forces and give their lives for a lot of things, but it doesn't make them right. Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but just look at how the Nazi's reacted to Hitler. Many of them were good people who were just misled and blinded by a sense of national pride. They thought they were helping the country, not committing a horrible atrocity (at least most of them).

See also: The crusades.

I understand, but these were unconnected groups of people who claimed that Jesus appeared to them after his death.
As I have explained through quotes above, many aspects of Jesus' life are accepted as historical facts - this includes that he claimed to be the Son of God. If you accept this, then I recommend you look at C. S. Lewis' argument: He was either a Lord, Lunatic or Liar. You must make your choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefA3f0n3OY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[dylansan]

I understand your point, but after I accepted the notion that everything had a beginning I could see no alternative rather than a deity that would make sense to me.
I look to things like the golden ratio, the structure of material, and most importantly the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind all pointers to the existence of the almighty.

But none of those are evidence of such. Have you noticed the golden ratio is only found in living things, or stuff created by living things (us)? It's not evidence of God, because it's just as fitting with the theory of evolution. Things very possibly evolved to use the golden ratio because it's useful.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by the structure of material. As well, the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind is not evidence of God, because that fact is compatible with many other explanations that don't require a God. The only time evidence proves something is when it is incompatible with an explanation, which proves that explanation wrong. None of your thoughts are only compatible with the existence of a diety.

Also, I think we need more discussion about the beginning of the universe, and why that argument fails. Your argument only makes sense if you define a universe as something which requires a beginning, and a deity as something which doesn't. You'll have to justify those definitions. I see no reason why a deity would be exempt from creation while a universe would not. They're both very intangible concepts and the requirements for their creation would be very hard to determine.

I understand, but these were unconnected groups of people who claimed that Jesus appeared to them after his death.
As I have explained through quotes above, many aspects of Jesus' life are accepted as historical facts - this includes that he claimed to be the Son of God. If you accept this, then I recommend you look at C. S. Lewis' argument: He was either a Lord, Lunatic or Liar. You must make your choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefA3f0n3OY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Hitler was a real person, and he claimed to be acting in the name of God. Which of the three was he?

And if Jesus did and said those things, but wasn't the son of God, I don't see how that would make him a lunatic. If he knew saying those things would help people be better people, he could have said them (lying) and not been crazy. The only crazy thing is the self sacrifice, but why is it so incorrect of me to call him a liar or a lunatic, just because those are negative things? They are still quite possible.

 

[Jubby]

Now who is to say the person/people who were in charge of re-writing the new versions of the bible interpreted things exactly as the way God meant them?

It's been shown that just in the translations (to modern languages) from the ancient scriptures that it's been mistranslated. How can we follow the Word of God if we, as humans, cannot even translate his word correctly? It only creates poor interpretations, which may not even be correct based off a poor translation.

 

[nitrorocks]

It's been shown that just in the translations (to modern languages) from the ancient scriptures that it's been mistranslated. How can we follow the Word of God if we, as humans, cannot even translate his word correctly? It only creates poor interpretations, which may not even be correct based off a poor translation.

Where did you get that from?

 

[TankAss95]

Unguided order from chaos is irrational based on my current knowledge. And the Golden ratio isn't only found in living things at all, it is found even on the scale of galaxies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ibc8sD5sgw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now, that, really shocked me.
[QUOTE="dylansan]You'll have to clarify what you mean by the structure of material. As well, the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind is not evidence of God, because that fact is compatible with many other explanations that don't require a God. The only time evidence proves something is when it is incompatible with an explanation, which proves that explanation wrong. None of your thoughts are only compatible with the existence of a diety.[/QUOTE]
And I said/meant that I see the structure of material (atoms, elements, etc) and the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind as evidence. I don't expect you to change your views based on my view, or even accept my view as a valid argument, I just want you to try and understand my view. That's what I'm here for. I hope to explain my view to the best of my ability as to why I specifically believe in the Christian concept of God.
[QUOTE="dylansan]Also, I think we need more discussion about the beginning of the universe, and why that argument fails. Your argument only makes sense if you define a universe as something which requires a beginning, and a deity as something which doesn't. You'll have to justify those definitions. I see no reason why a deity would be exempt from creation while a universe would not. They're both very intangible concepts and the requirements for their creation would be very hard to determine.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, good point. 👍 It's been mentioned before but perhaps that's a good pointer to where I need to go in my argument.
Do you accept that everything had a beginning? I'm not trying to guide you into any planned argument or anything, as I understand that both our arguments would neutralise each-other and eventually be worthless (or rather pointless).
I can't understand how nature could have created itself as in order to do so there must be material/energy and the laws that govern them plus the reason why time itself started.
I can see two explanations: the first cause (or the 'ultimate reality' as I see it) must have been extraordinarily simple or extraordinarily complex. My candidate for that first cause is God, because by simple logic, an infinite power only be the first cause (in my understanding, anyway).

[QUOTE="dylansan]Hitler was a real person, and he claimed to be acting in the name of God. Which of the three was he?[/QUOTE]

Hitler didn't claim to BE God, though, did he? And Hitler wasn't a Christian by the way, incase you didn't know. He used religion to help get himself into power. Just for the sake of argument though, assuming Hitler claimed that he was a Christian, he was a liar. He didn't follow the doctrine of Christianity at all.

EDIT: And yeah nitrorocks, that is a load of rubbish what he is saying.
No original copies of the scripture have been found, but numerous very early translations have been collected - all in harmony with each other. I do have some material to back up my claim for that, but I don't have access to that information right now.

Patience would be appreciated.

 

[nitrorocks]

Unguided order from chaos is irrational based on my current knowledge. And the Golden ratio isn't only found in living things at all, it is found even on the scale of galaxies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ibc8sD5sgw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now, that, really shocked me.
[QUOTE="dylansan]You'll have to clarify what you mean by the structure of material. As well, the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind is not evidence of God, because that fact is compatible with many other explanations that don't require a God. The only time evidence proves something is when it is incompatible with an explanation, which proves that explanation wrong. None of your thoughts are only compatible with the existence of a diety.

And I said/meant that I see the structure of material (atoms, elements, etc) and the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind as evidence. I don't expect you to change your views based on my view, or even accept my view as a valid argument, I just want you to try and understand my view. That's what I'm here for. I hope to explain my view to the best of my ability as to why I specifically believe in the Christian concept of God.
[QUOTE="dylansan]Also, I think we need more discussion about the beginning of the universe, and why that argument fails. Your argument only makes sense if you define a universe as something which requires a beginning, and a deity as something which doesn't. You'll have to justify those definitions. I see no reason why a deity would be exempt from creation while a universe would not. They're both very intangible concepts and the requirements for their creation would be very hard to determine.[/QUOTE]
Hmm, good point. 👍 It's been mentioned before but perhaps that's a good pointer to where I need to go in my argument.
Do you accept that everything had a beginning? I'm not trying to guide you into any planned argument or anything, as I understand that both our arguments would neutralise each-other and eventually be worthless (or rather pointless).
I can't understand how nature could have created itself as in order to do so there must be material/energy and the laws that govern them plus the reason why time itself started.
I can see two explanations: the first cause (or the 'ultimate reality' as I see it) must have been extraordinarily simple or extraordinarily complex. My candidate for that first cause is God, because by simple logic, an infinite power only be the first cause (in my understanding, anyway).

[QUOTE="dylansan]Hitler was a real person, and he claimed to be acting in the name of God. Which of the three was he?[/QUOTE]

Hitler didn't claim to BE God, though, did he? And Hitler wasn't a Christian by the way, incase you didn't know. He used religion to help get himself into power. Just for the sake of argument though, assuming Hitler claimed that he was a Christian, he was a liar. He didn't follow the doctrine of Christianity at all.

EDIT: And yeah nitrorocks, that is a load of rubbish what he is saying.
No original copies of the scripture have been found, but numerous very early translations have been collected - all in harmony with each other. I do have some material to back up my claim for that, but I don't have access to that information right now.

Patience would be appreciated.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know. Some times there are some posts that aren't researched very well

 

[superbike81]

Yeah I know. Some times there are some posts that aren't researched very well

You haven't posted a single factual thing in this thread.

No translation is ever perfect, especially when we are talking about translating ancient languages. Even religious scholars admit that some things in the old testament may have been lost in translation.

Also, why didn't you respond to my post before? You said some things in the old testament were silly, therefore God's word is silly. Is that what you are saying? Also, changing things in the bible to meet modern times is acceptable? Modifying God's word? I don't think he/she/it would like that.

 

[Hun200kmh]

. Double post. Delete please. Sorry for inconvenience.

And with that one you made a triple!

PS - Don't worry too much with Hitler references. According to Godwin's Law they are internetically unavoidable, regardless of the subject being debated ...

 

[dylansan]

Unguided order from chaos is irrational based on my current knowledge. And the Golden ratio isn't only found in living things at all, it is found even on the scale of galaxies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ibc8sD5sgw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now, that, really shocked me.

Interesting. Have a look at this. I'm willing to bet the same principles that force the oil or the plant parts into Fibonacci spirals also applies to Galaxies through gravitational forces.

There's no reason order can't come from chaos is a system with an external energy source, AKA the sun. In a closed system, the total entropy can never decrease, and things only get more chaotic. But so long as the outside energy sources like the sun are getting more chaotic, the order in out world violates no laws of physics.

And I said/meant that I see the structure of material (atoms, elements, etc) and the fact that the universe is accessible to the human mind as evidence. I don't expect you to change your views based on my view, or even accept my view as a valid argument, I just want you to try and understand my view. That's what I'm here for. I hope to explain my view to the best of my ability as to why I specifically believe in the Christian concept of God.

You see it as evidence, but it is not evidence. It doesn't "point" to any answer in particular, it only rules out incompatible explanations. If you admit you do not have a valid argument for your beliefs then I don't see how you can justify them in any way other than you just want to believe.

Hmm, good point. 👍 It's been mentioned before but perhaps that's a good pointer to where I need to go in my argument.
Do you accept that everything had a beginning? I'm not trying to guide you into any planned argument or anything, as I understand that both our arguments would neutralise each-other and eventually be worthless (or rather pointless).
I can't understand how nature could have created itself as in order to do so there must be material/energy and the laws that govern them plus the reason why time itself started.

This is the reason I currently feel like everything being infinite is most likely, though I'm not totally convinced. I don't know how unlikely it is that out of one random universe it would create intelligent life, but I know with an infinite number, it would happen undoubtedly, and where it did happen, those lifeforms would ask these questions. In that case, we are not so lucky but just natural results.

I can see two explanations: the first cause (or the 'ultimate reality' as I see it) must have been extraordinarily simple or extraordinarily complex. My candidate for that first cause is God, because by simple logic, an infinite power only be the first cause (in my understanding, anyway).

The Christian God is by no means a simple explanation. Intelligence is much more complicated a trait than the intersection of two unintelligent membranes. However, I don't see what complexity has to do with it. Something simple can cause something complex to happen, as can something slightly less simple, etc. Any complexity of thing could potentially cause the universe, as far as we are aware. We cannot rule out those possibilities.

Hitler didn't claim to BE God, though, did he? And Hitler wasn't a Christian by the way, incase you didn't know. He used religion to help get himself into power. Just for the sake of argument though, assuming Hitler claimed that he was a Christian, he was a liar. He didn't follow the doctrine of Christianity at all.

I don't see how what he claimed has any bearing on its truth. If I claim to be God you won't believe me, I know that much. And I'm using Hitler as an example because so many people believed him to be truthful and good (and sane) when he wasn't. I don't see why the same could not at least be possible for Jesus, though I won't suggest that's necessarily the case.

 

[Jubby]

Where did you get that from?

A couple of examples for your consideration:
One
Two
I'm sure you could find much more debate on just this issue alone.

 

[TankAss95]

Interesting. Have a look at this. I'm willing to bet the same principles that force the oil or the plant parts into Fibonacci spirals also applies to Galaxies through gravitational forces.

Now that is interesting.
The point is though, is that the laws themselves seem to be in such a way that is self sustainable. If the universe had some kind of natural beginning (unguided by intelligence, something I can't really imagine) then it would have to arrange itself in such a way that could make our current understanding of what has to happen necessary.

There's no reason order can't come from chaos is a system with an external energy source, AKA the sun.

Wouldn't it depend on scale too. Is that universal?

In a closed system, the total entropy can never decrease, and things only get more chaotic. But so long as the outside energy sources like the sun are getting more chaotic, the order in out world violates no laws of physics.

Sorry, but isn't that paradoxical?

You see it as evidence, but it is not evidence. It doesn't "point" to any answer in particular, it only rules out incompatible explanations. If you admit you do not have a valid argument for your beliefs then I don't see how you can justify them in any way other than you just want to believe.

I believe that I have enough evidence to make my beliefs considerable to the skeptic.
The point I am making is that there is evidence pointing to a singularity of everything. Laws of nature have to be put in place for any laws of nature to arise.
The way the universe has a selection of specific materials built up upon precise workings of atoms which we still currently don't understand along with the way that the laws of nature work harmoniously leads me to believe that it was built and stabilised by a designer.

This is the reason I currently feel like everything being infinite is most likely, though I'm not totally convinced. I don't know how unlikely it is that out of one random universe it would create intelligent life, but I know with an infinite number, it would happen undoubtedly, and where it did happen, those lifeforms would ask these questions. In that case, we are not so lucky but just natural results.

With infinite chance there is infinite possibility - but if the universe had infinite chance it must not violate that rule in itself.
Let's take the idea that there is a 'Big Bang', then after a while, due to gravity the universe collapses back on itself to create another singularity for the process to be continued for infinium. By this logic, the actual process must follow another law of nature to continue itself so that the next process will be able to collapse back on itself and repeat. Infinite regress again.
Infinite chance cannot allow infinite possibility because part of that possibility must include the objection to the law of another chance. This process needs restriction, which is controlled by another law and there-forth.

The Christian God is by no means a simple explanation. Intelligence is much more complicated a trait than the intersection of two unintelligent membranes. However, I don't see what complexity has to do with it. Something simple can cause something complex to happen, as can something slightly less simple, etc. Any complexity of thing could potentially cause the universe, as far as we are aware. We cannot rule out those possibilities.

But I don't see God as a mathematical formula, or process. He is the ultimate reality behind everything, who is himself restricted only because he is perfect.
What I meant was that I can see a origin as being absolutely simple or absolutely complex - regardless I see God.

I don't see how what he claimed has any bearing on its truth. If I claim to be God you won't believe me, I know that much. And I'm using Hitler as an example because so many people believed him to be truthful and good (and sane) when he wasn't. I don't see why the same could not at least be possible for Jesus, though I won't suggest that's necessarily the case.

Did you actually watch the video?
Listen to C. S. Lewis describing how Jesus was like. He described himself as meek and able to forgive sins on people's behalf. There is no 'Was Jesus a good person' here, he either was The Son of God, Insane, or a Lair.
The hypothesis that the Messiah was 'made up' is incoherent and too simple when you get down to the facts.

 

[jcm]

As the guards march me out to the courtyard,
Somebody cries from a cell "God be with you".
If there's a God then why does he let me go?

Part of Hallowed Be Thy Name - Iron Maiden.

I think it's a good song.




Also, I honestly don't see the need for so many long posts. Neither side can be officially proven in a way that convinces the other side. I think a better question would be do you believe in reincarnation?. I don't believe in it, but it hasn't been discussed as much as this topic so why not