Do you believe in God?

[superbike81]

I'm glad someone mentioned the long posts. The majority of readers will skip right over those long posts, or just skim them quickly, very rarely are they read in their entirety. You should always try to limit yourself to 100 or so words in forum posts.

 

[niky]

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.

Says who? Are you saying that infinity cannot be infinite without a finity? That doesn't compute. Infinite probability means that "another chance" is actually happening completely separately and concurrently. There is currently no evidence that the cycle is a repeating one, either, so the statement makes no sense either way.

The hypothesis that the Messiah was 'made up' is incoherent and too simple when you get down to the facts.

Again, says who? Why is it too simple to say that a Jewish prophet styled himself as the Messiah after the prophecies made by other prophets?

 

[Jubby]

do you believe in reincarnation?.

I think, in part, most major religions believe in the value of reincarnation based on its definition.

1. the belief that the soul, upon death of the body, comes back to earth in another body or form.
2. rebirth of the soul in a new body.
3. a new incarnation or embodiment, as of a person.

It seems to me that it's life after death. A body or form is so broad.

I personally do.

 

[nitrorocks]

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.

Oh didn't see your other post. The Mobile app sucks. The people that. Changed the bible had permission from god. Apostles, Disciples, Prophets, etc

 

[TankAss95]

Says who? Are you saying that infinity cannot be infinite without a finity? That doesn't compute. Infinite probability means that "another chance" is actually happening completely separately and concurrently. There is currently no evidence that the cycle is a repeating one, either, so the statement makes no sense either way.

"With infinite possibility there is infinite chance."
^The above offers two sets of infinite. The first is the law that there must be an infinite amount of chances, the second states that as a consequence of there being infinite possibility, there must be infinite chance.
The problem is though, that the second statement must object to the first. Infinite means that everything possible will happen. If the laws of nature are continuously recycled, then one cycle must allow the universe to be eternal, and therefore un-repeatable.
So in order for that statement to work, there must be an unforced law where the second statement cannot invalidate the first. This means that an indefinite cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' must have an underlying law that makes the production of an eternal universe absolutely impossible - and that law requires further explanation.

Again, says who? Why is it too simple to say that a Jewish prophet styled himself as the Messiah after the prophecies made by other prophets?

Says me.
And to your question: yes.
Simple details in the description of the resurrection are improbable to the hypothesis that it was just made up. Many details like the fact that first witnesses were women would have been seen as embarrassing to the emerging church at the time, as women were not taken seriously as witnesses back then.
Also many unconnected people described the event in surprising detail - all identical but a few minor details.

 

[dylansan]

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.

You're still missing the point that if that didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to see it. Those specific natural laws are only necessary if we are necessary, but there's no reason to believe life had to exist at all. Think of all the places in the universe where there is nothing, or where there is just chaos. Someone alive there would perhaps see that as evidence that the universe's laws are random and probably not designed. But then, that person can't exist.

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

I'm just talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total chaos in a closed system (no external energy sources) will only ever increase, not decrease. Entropy can decrease (and therefore cause order) only by increasing the entropy of another system, like the sun.

Sorry, but isn't that paradoxical?

How so? Total order always decreases, but the order produced on our planet is balanced by the decreasing order of our sun. No paradox.

I believe that I have enough evidence to make my beliefs considerable to the skeptic.

The only "evidence" you usually produce is that things don't make sense to you unless a God created the universe. If you want to convince me of anything, at least show with logic and reason that an alternative explanation of the universe cannot be true. Don't just use the fact that some of their implications make you uncomfortable. That happens to me too. The ideas of infinity and such are mind boggling but that doesn't prove them wrong.

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.

Laws of nature need a means to arise in order to arise. That means can be anything, not just a God.

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.

Again, you're missing that if the universe wasn't stable enough for us, we wouldn't be here to notice it. The only universes we could have existed in are the ones that have the required laws. The fact that we exist in one is not evidence of design, but evidence that the universe is capable of sustaining us. Nothing more.

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.

Infinite chance does not mean everything will happen. It means anything with a small chance of happening will happen, somewhere.

Also, infinite chance does not necessarily mean everything that can happen will happen at a certain point in space, far into the future. It means at a very far away point in space, probably well beyond our observable universe, something is happening at the same time. Depending on many things, that point could be in another "universe" in a way, which started from a different big bang or something, so the laws of physics are slightly different.

I'm more inclined to think infinite chance only applies to things that are actually possible with laws of physics like our own. Where the chance refers to the chance that a certain arrangement of subatomic particles, and somewhere out there that arrangement exists. Something which doesn't involve subatomic particles, but some other material, might not be possible.

Did you watch all of that infinity series? It was very interesting, and relevant to this point near the end.

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.

The ultimate reality behind everything is reality. Some of it may be in higher dimensions, strings of membranes or whatever, but if this God exists completely separate from all of that, there's no way he could have created or affected the universe in any way without becoming a part of reality and thus being subject to laws of physics.

Otherwise I could say the strings in string theory are perfect, and exist outside our reality, the ultimate reality behind everything. And then you couldn't make an argument about how the strings were created because I just told you they are perfect and exist outside of reality. Now wouldn't that be annoying?

What I meant was that I can see a origin as being absolutely simple or absolutely complex - regardless I see God.

I see strings. Or membranes. Why is God more feasible?

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.

I'm saying he quite possibly was a lunatic or a liar. Those are both much more likely than him being the related to a deity. Alternatively, it's still possible he didn't exist. Every "fact" in the video assumed Jesus existed. It described divine characteristics and then claimed it would be too simple so say he didn't exist. How does that work?

 

[TankAss95]

You're still missing the point that if that didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to see it.

Wait, you said that I couldn't argue that the probability of life is minuscule because I have nothing to compare with, so why should I accept your statement that the golden ratio must happen for life to occur?
It seems to be that you don't accept my statement that our existence is exceedingly improbable, yet explain that the golden ratio must occur for life to exist.
1) The universe had to be in it's current form that we observe because it's the only way it could exist.
2) Multiple chances must have had occurred, eventually giving us a precise tuning suitable for the possibility of life.
3) Our existence is just improbable, yet here. A 'lucky' roll of the dice.
4) It was created by an intelligent force.

(I'm sure there is more, but that's the main brief possibilities I look upon.)

Those specific natural laws are only necessary if we are necessary, but there's no reason to believe life had to exist at all. Think of all the places in the universe where there is nothing, or where there is just chaos. Someone alive there would perhaps see that as evidence that the universe's laws are random and probably not designed. But then, that person can't exist.I'm just talking about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the total chaos in a closed system (no external energy sources) will only ever increase, not decrease. Entropy can decrease (and therefore cause order) only by increasing the entropy of another system, like the sun.How so? Total order always decreases, but the order produced on our planet is balanced by the decreasing order of our sun.

Yet we are here, and we have to base our opinions on what we seem to be correct.
Total chaos couldn't create the laws themselves able to provide stability.

No paradox.The only "evidence" you usually produce is that things don't make sense to you unless a God created the universe. If you want to convince me of anything, at least show with logic and reason that an alternative explanation of the universe cannot be true.

True, and that's what I'm trying to do.

Don't just use the fact that some of their implications make you uncomfortable. That happens to me too. The ideas of infinity and such are mind boggling but that doesn't prove them wrong.Laws of nature need a means to arise in order to arise. That means can be anything, not just a God.

Hmm, I agree and disagree with that point there.
I once saw a video of an astronomer who was asked what his opinions were on an infinite universe. He explained that he just couldn't accept it, because by doing so he couldn't make any sense of the conditions he was currently in. He said that he accepted the finite, singular universe because he used that as a kind of periscope to make sense of his surroundings and progress in his work. He explained that he would be happy to accept that the universe was infinite if there was enough evidence, but he just couldn't operate assuming the possibility.
Before we test things we make assumptions, and that's part of how our knowledge grows, and that we understand our surroundings better.

Again, you're missing that if the universe wasn't stable enough for us, we wouldn't be here to notice it. The only universes we could have existed in are the ones that have the required laws. The fact that we exist in one is not evidence of design, but evidence that the universe is capable of sustaining us. Nothing more.Infinite chance does not mean everything will happen. It means anything with a small chance of happening will happen, somewhere.

I see the world differently.
And infinite possibility means that everything, no matter how small the possibility, must happen (in accordance to any underlying rules).
By that logic, in an infinite universe, there is an identical planet like our own, with identical people. On another, John Lennox is an atheist, and Richard Dawkins is the Pope!

Also, infinite chance does not necessarily mean everything that can happen will happen at a certain point in space, far into the future. It means at a very far away point in space, probably well beyond our observable universe, something is happening at the same time. Depending on many things, that point could be in another "universe" in a way, which started from a different big bang or something, so the laws of physics are slightly different.

I can't accept that, because multiple beginnings must have some kind of underlying law in which to be created.
And chances are, one of those territories would invalidate the rule of infinite chance (as I have explained above), making the whole thing collapse.

I'm more inclined to think infinite chance only applies to things that are actually possible with laws of physics like our own. Where the chance refers to the chance that a certain arrangement of subatomic particles, and somewhere out there that arrangement exists. Something which doesn't involve subatomic particles, but some other material, might not be possible.

And by that thinking you have accepted that there must be another law which makes a variety of otherwise possible actions impossible.

Did you watch all of that infinity series? It was very interesting, and relevant to this point near the end.The ultimate reality behind everything is reality. Some of it may be in higher dimensions, strings of membranes or whatever, but if this God exists completely separate from all of that, there's no way he could have created or affected the universe in any way without becoming a part of reality and thus being subject to laws of physics.

I watched one infinity series, perhaps not the one you are talking about.
And here again we fall into the trap of infinite regress: Who created the creator?
As I have said previously, I don't see God as a mathematical formula or natural law, I see him as intelligence with infinite power beyond our understanding. I can see how one could reject this, but if the universe had a beginning I cannot understand how it could be a mindless process.
And anyway finite can't produce infinity, can it?

Otherwise I could say the strings in string theory are perfect, and exist outside our reality, the ultimate reality behind everything. And then you couldn't make an argument about how the strings were created because I just told you they are perfect and exist outside of reality. Now wouldn't that be annoying?I see strings. Or membranes. Why is God more feasible?

I don't find that annoying at all. The reason I find God to be more feasible because I believe that he is personal and has revealed himself to us.

I'm saying he quite possibly was a lunatic or a liar. Those are both much more likely than him being the related to a deity. Alternatively, it's still possible he didn't exist. Every "fact" in the video assumed Jesus existed. It described divine characteristics and then claimed it would be too simple so say he didn't exist. How does that work?

As part of the argument C. S. Lewis assumed that the reader accepted that Jesus existed.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I don't find that annoying at all. The reason I find God to be more feasible because I believe that he is personal and has revealed himself to us.

When? Where? I've never seen him.

By all means, a picture is worth a thousand words...

 

[TankAss95]

When? Where? I've never seen him.

By all means, a picture is worth a thousand words...

Jesus Christ.
And you still haven't responded to my question of where I have offended you with your beliefs (which I'm not quite sure what they are yet anyway).

 

[Ecchi-BANZAII!!]

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

I see one alien on the right and one on the left going in for a bear hug with arms stretched out.

 

[dylansan]

Wait, you said that I couldn't argue that the probability of life is minuscule because I have nothing to compare with, so why should I accept your statement that the golden ratio must happen for life to occur?
It seems to be that you don't accept my statement that our existence is exceedingly improbable, yet explain that the golden ratio must occur for life to exist.

I made no such claim. I explained that plants follow the golden ratio because that's the best way for them to get sunlight, and showed that it's entirely possible for them to grow that way by basic processes. How you interpreted that as claiming life requires the golden ratio is beyond me.

What's probably true is that plants evolved with that ratio because they survived better than ones that didn't, although some without the ratio survived well anyway. Because of the geometric nature of the Golden ratio, it's not hard to imagine that all instances of it in nature may be due to geometric processes, such as that oil experiment. But to think life wouldn't exist without it is baseless. Especially since life exists that doesn't have that ratio.

1) The universe had to be in it's current form that we observe because it's the only way it could exist.
2) Multiple chances must have had occurred, eventually giving us a precise tuning suitable for the possibility of life.
3) Our existence is just improbable, yet here. A 'lucky' roll of the dice.
4) It was created by an intelligent force.
(I'm sure there is more, but that's the main brief possibilities I look upon.)

So these are the four options you see for the universe's existence? The answer is likely to be 2), from what I can calculate. 3) is by definition unlikely, 1) has been shown to be false essentially by scientists who calculated that life could exist with many different values for the laws of physics. And 4) begs the question of how the intelligent force was created.

Yet we are here, and we have to base our opinions on what we seem to be correct.
Total chaos couldn't create the laws themselves able to provide stability.

Who says they were created from chaos? The big bang started as an incredibly ordered situation. By that I mean, in all of space, the particles in the big bang were relatively close together, rather than spread evenly throughout space. Read up on entropy and what it means on a particle level.

True, and that's what I'm trying to do.

I should add that it's also important for you to defend your explanation from evidence against it, though I know you have been. For example, I'm still not sure how you can claim God requires no creator but the universe does.

Hmm, I agree and disagree with that point there.
I once saw a video of an astronomer who was asked what his opinions were on an infinite universe. He explained that he just couldn't accept it, because by doing so he couldn't make any sense of the conditions he was currently in. He said that he accepted the finite, singular universe because he used that as a kind of periscope to make sense of his surroundings and progress in his work. He explained that he would be happy to accept that the universe was infinite if there was enough evidence, but he just couldn't operate assuming the possibility.
Before we test things we make assumptions, and that's part of how our knowledge grows, and that we understand our surroundings better.

It's the same with Newton's laws versus Einstein's relativity. The problem is that for most of the speeds we deal with, Newton's laws work fine, but in the bounding cases, they are insufficient. Depending on what the astronomer was studying, it may have been reasonable to assume the universe was finite to make the calculations easier, but for someone studying the origin of the universe, or figuring the deeper mysteries, it's an important question that has great affect on the answers.

I see the world differently.
And infinite possibility means that everything, no matter how small the possibility, must happen (in accordance to any underlying rules).
By that logic, in an infinite universe, there is an identical planet like our own, with identical people. On another, John Lennox is an atheist, and Richard Dawkins is the Pope!

Yep, no discrepancy there. That is perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned, although it is quite incredible.

I can't accept that, because multiple beginnings must have some kind of underlying law in which to be created.
And chances are, one of those territories would invalidate the rule of infinite chance (as I have explained above), making the whole thing collapse.

Maybe there is an underlying law for everything that occupies the same "space" as our universe. i.e. anything that could potentially be reached by us given enough time. There's also the chance of other dimensions which are required to be separate from ours, because their laws conflict with ours. We may never know about those, or they may interact in some bizzare way.

And by that thinking you have accepted that there must be another law which makes a variety of otherwise possible actions impossible.

You may be right there. That does conflict, so maybe what I wrote above is a more accurate extrapolation of what infinite chance means.

I watched one infinity series, perhaps not the one you are talking about.
And here again we fall into the trap of infinite regress: Who created the creator?
As I have said previously, I don't see God as a mathematical formula or natural law, I see him as intelligence with infinite power beyond our understanding. I can see how one could reject this, but if the universe had a beginning I cannot understand how it could be a mindless process.
And anyway finite can't produce infinity, can it?

God is not the only infinite option though. Many things are created through mindless processes. I still find the characteristic of intelligence to require to much extra explanation to fit. Can you define exactly how God's intelligence works? Would it not require something like neurons in a brain or some other way of dealing with information? Intelligence is a complicated thing, but as far as I'm concerned it requires natural laws to function.

I don't find that annoying at all. The reason I find God to be more feasible because I believe that he is personal and has revealed himself to us.

To you maybe, but no God has revealed himself to me.

As part of the argument C. S. Lewis assumed that the reader accepted that Jesus existed.

Alright, but even if he did he could still be a lunatic or a liar.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Jesus Christ.
And you still haven't responded to my question of where I have offended you with your beliefs (which I'm not quite sure what they are yet anyway).

Didn't feel like responding. It wasn't directed only to you though, if the quote made it look that way.

I believe in burning rubber and race fuel.

 

[Dennisch]

Remember Ground hog day?

That should be the new name of this thread.

 

[nitrorocks]

I have always been confused by this: why do atheists think we have come from nothing?

 

[Dennisch]

I have always been confused by this: why do atheists think we have come from nothing?

Actually, science is now trying to figure out if there was something before the big poof. So "we atheists" may have a new explanation in a couple of years.

And answer 2: Why do believers think that god was always here?

 

[dylansan]

I have always been confused by this: why do atheists think we have come from nothing?

Because we don't? I have always been confused by people attributing things to atheists that aren't true. I suppose we also don't have morals or a purpose in life?

 

[Dennisch]

Because we don't? I have always been confused by people attributing things to atheists that aren't true. I suppose we also don't have morals or a purpose in life?

Yes and we eat little religious children.

 

[superbike81]

I ate a Catholic school girl once, but she want exactly little.

God must have been extremely disappointed with her after I corrupted her. Oh well.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I think a child that still believes in Santa, will disagree with you.

A child doesn't believe in Santa but believes their parents which is in the position of God.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I ate a Catholic school girl once, but she want exactly little.

God must have been extremely disappointed with her after I corrupted her. Oh well.

Oh snap.

 

[nitrorocks]

Because we don't? I have always been confused by people attributing things to atheists that aren't true. I suppose we also don't have morals or a purpose in life?

I didn't mean to offend you if I did. But you have to think something created us right?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I didn't mean to offend you if I did. But you have to think something created us right?

Naturalist (which are atheist) has a bottom-top view , that is a blind, purposeless, non- intelligent universe create by accident a being that has eyes, intelligence and do things with purpose. ( a nature god.)

 

[dylansan]

I didn't mean to offend you if I did. But you have to think something created us right?

Not really, no. Not through any intelligent process where someone decided it was best for us to exist, but by natural processes which caused us to become the dominant lifeforms on our planet.

Naturalist (which are atheist) has a bottom-top view , that is a blind, purposeless, non- intelligent universe create by accident a being that has eyes, intelligence and do things with purpose. ( a nature god.)

Naturalists are pretty much required to be atheists but not all atheists are naturalists. Naturalists believe the universe is governed by natural laws and processes, and nothing exists outside the natural world that could affect those laws. Many of them accept essentially what you said, that a purposeless universe caused us to exist. However, to say it happened accidentally greatly misunderstands the processes in question. We didn't just randomly pop up by random chance, we were modified by our environment according to natural laws which caused us to become what we are today.

 

[superbike81]

I didn't mean to offend you if I did. But you have to think something created us right?

To be honest, I find the "Mission to Mars" theory much more plausible than any deity. That is, that an alien race much older and much more advanced than us found this rock in space and saw it as a good place for a new start. They sent their most basic units of life to this planet and we have evolved to what we are today.

Who or what created those aliens? I have no idea, but I do know that there has been absolutely ****zzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrroooooooooo**** empirical evidence to support that an omnipotent deity exists.

 

[niky]

Not really. There's no reason to invoke intelligent alien intervention at all.

You also have to take into account when such alien life formed. There was a period in the life of the early universe when contaminants necessary for our kind of life were not widespread. Stuff like potassium, calcium, iron, phosphorous... Our form of life has evolved on a world seeeded with contaminants from ancient supernovae. In fact, the entire planet is made up of the remains of dead stars.

One possible answer to the Fermi Paradox is that aliens have not contacted us simply because carbon-based intelligent life on other planets within our galaxy is only emerging elsewhere at roughly the same time we are. Another uncomfortable possibility is that we might be the first intelligent life in a mostly empty galaxy.

So in order for that statement to work, there must be an unforced law where the second statement cannot invalidate the first. This means that an indefinite cycle of 'Big Bangs' and 'Big Crunches' must have an underlying law that makes the production of an eternal universe absolutely impossible - and that law requires further explanation.

Who says that hasn't already happened? You are arguing that it is impossible because you have no evidence for an eternal Universe. How many universes have you actually sampled? One.

Like I said... there is absolutely no evidence our Universe is recurring or is the only one. Thus the assumptions you use to justify your little logical exercise are inherently flawed. There is nothing wrong with saying infinite probability is infinite, only with your understanding of it.

Simple details in the description of the resurrection are improbable to the hypothesis that it was just made up. Many details like the fact that first witnesses were women would have been seen as embarrassing to the emerging church at the time, as women were not taken seriously as witnesses back then.

Says you. Jesus' ministry was marked by his closeness to women and his forgiveness of adulterers. Both "embarrassing" at the time. Why would female witnesses to the resurrection be any different?

Also many unconnected people described the event in surprising detail - all identical but a few minor details.

Given that the original source of the story is a small group of apostles, that's not surprising.

And what about the gnostic gospels, which deviated greatly in the way they depicted the events of Jesus' life? You're taking the fact that the synoptic gospels all almost completely agree as a sign that the story hasn't changed or distorted from sect to sect. Which isn't completely true.

 

[Denur]

A child doesn't believe in Santa but believes their parents which is in the position of God.

You are not making sense to me, can you rephrase please?

 

[superbike81]

I think he is saying young children view their parents in a "God-like" way. Can't say I agree, but it's his opinion and he is sticking to it.

 

[Liquid]

I think he is saying young children view their parents in a "God-like" way. Can't say I agree, but it's his opinion and he is sticking to it.

In this analogy it seems like;

Father Christmas = God
Parents = Bishops/Vicars
Children = Believers

 

[Denur]

I think he is saying young children view their parents in a "God-like" way. Can't say I agree, but it's his opinion and he is sticking to it.

Maybe children do, but it doesn't really matter. Do them Santa is as real as a teapot, so 'believe' might not be the correct term. In the same way they view God: they grow up among people how believe in God and to them God is also as real as that teapot. At one point in their young lives, they are told by their parents, siblings and/or little friends that Santa is not real, does not exist. And they buy that easily and stop believing in Santa.
This doesn't happen though, where it concerns God, especially within very religious communities (Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Amish etc.). Here everybody believes in God and the child is never told otherwise. By the time the child is old enough to think for itself, his/her believe in God (or any other deity) is so deeply engraved, that is near impossible to start "un-believing".

(That is my view on things, so don't start asking me for sources)

 

[fitftw]

It is only logical to have one foot on both sides of the fence. Either the big bang created us, or god did. Neither one has ENOUGH evidence to prove its case, but they both have the same AMOUNT of evidence.


You can't believe in one without keeping your mind's eye open to the other.