Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

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.

I can't agree with that statement. There's plenty of evidence out there that supports the big bang. Is it proven? No. But there's a very good foundation under the big bang theory.

The existence of god, on the other hand, is backed up by virtually nothing that could be called evidence.

 

[Dotini]

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.

TankAss and Niky are having a good conversation, which I am enjoying.

I also like this question of the Gnostics, about which there is a body of literature including Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels". This is such an entertaining and interesting story that both atheist and believer would intellectually profit from it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[BobK]

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).

Nor have you responded when I challenged your ridiculous assertion that I claimed that Jesus Christ never existed. Again show me where I made that claim.

Why is it okay for you to badger other members here to answer your questions when you totally ignore questions asked of you by others?

 

[TankAss95]

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.

No-one. My argument is that there must be another underlying law of nature that in itself requires explanation.
May I add that I am getting the impression that Naturalism/Matierialism have wrongly claimed dominion over science - that is not the case, however Richard Dawkins and such may passionately express with such militant attitude. It could be argued that science origionated from a monotheistic culture, accepting that the reliable, consistant laws of nature were given by a divine law giver. If there were no stability of laws in nature, then science wouldn't work. Accepting the existance of a divine law giver is a pathway to rational thinking - you have to prove to me that there is a more suitable world view, regardless of evidence.
As I said, knowledge originates from observations and eventually assumptions which we build foundations upon. What's different with doing this with the origin of everything? Why do you back the God hypothesis into a corner when we don't yet (and probably never will) know the ultimate reality of everything?

The case isn't science v religion, it's more a battle between the world views of naturalism/materialism and theism. I cannot stress this enough.

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.

All scientific explanations fail when questions of origins are introduced.

My response is that there is no evidence that it is not - and that's not a trick of the non-falsiable. After the 1920's, its been largely accepted that our observable existance (however small a fraction it may be to all reality) had a beggining. Everything else I've came across is speculative. An eternal existance of nature as we know it has been widely rejected in a respectable sense.

And if all our observable existance was eternal in a non-repeating sense as I have previously mentioned, then there wouldn't be such a high range of different temperatures - everything would be constant.

The idea of infinite chance there would be infinite probability could be accepted, but there must be restrictions to the nature of the variety of possibilities, as it would violate the continuation of infinite chance. This requires more explanation.

All this leads to more questions than answers - a response often brought upon me with my belief in God. It is your choice wether to accept this or not, although I can't accept the naturalistic view. I hope I have explained why.

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?

Validation. Why make a scandal less acceptable to the current culture?

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.

I haven't heard of the gnostic gospels before - thank's for sharing. I will look into it. Any usefull links?

TankAss and Niky are having a good conversation, which I am enjoying.

I also like this question of the Gnostics, about which there is a body of literature including Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels". This is such an entertaining and interesting story that both atheist and believer would intellectually profit from it.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Thank's for your encouragment. It's refreshing to hear people finding my arguments interesting - especially after my continued lack of success in this debate. 👍

 

[Hun200kmh]

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.

Sorry but this is not correct. For all I know I firmly believe the Big Bang Theory is the one that, with our current scientifical knowledge, gathers more empirical evidence supporting it, and I have no reason to come up with any other.

I think many christians, mainly in the protestant camp* still have a real problem to accept scientific theories like Evolution and the Big Bang. I suspect that the concept of GOD not being from this world is - by many - still interpreted as if "this world" meant "Earth". It doesn't mean that obviously, in fact that doesn't even make any sense.

In other words (my poor English sometimes gets me in trouble because my posts become confusing), GOD is, I believe, the Creator of everything. How, why, when ... is not something that bothers me. And I do like to learn what science keeps discovering or theorizing about how the Universe we know came into physical, existence, How galaxies were formed, how our solar system formed, how the moon formed, how did life appear, when, how did it evolve, etc. etc. etc.

* (this surprises me, I always thought protestants were the "liberal" christians, and the orthodox were the "old school" still very medieval christians, us catholics being somewhere in the middle)

 

[CodeRedR51]

I can't agree with that statement. There's plenty of evidence out there that supports the big bang. Is it proven? No. But there's a very good foundation under the big bang theory.

The existence of god, on the other hand, is backed up by virtually nothing that could be called evidence.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[superbike81]

Thank's for your encouragment. It's refreshing to hear people finding my arguments interesting - especially after my continued lack of success in this debate. 👍

This is a debate that neither side will win because we are debating about ideals and beliefs.

Do you think in a Presidential debate if a Democrat does much better in the debate a bunch of Republicans are going to jump ship and suddenly change their political affiliation to Democrat?

Nope. The only way this debate will ever be finished is if God shows him/her/it self directly in a way that will leave zero doubt. We could have all the scientific evidence in the world to disprove the existence of God but theists will still say that God created everything.

Unwinnable debate is unwinnable.

 

[huskeR32]

Why do you back the God hypothesis into a corner when we don't yet (and probably never will) know the ultimate reality of everything?

Because it doesn't have any evidence behind it.

All scientific explanations fail when questions of origins are introduced.

So does religion.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

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.

A judge is in the position of God yet can still be totally ungodly.

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

If you being around children then you know they will believe what their parents tell them... thus their faith is in their parents and not some strange character. This is why it's not uncommon for a little child to "believe in Santa" but will start to cry when the parent sit their child in Santa's lap. Santa is still a strange to that child.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Sorry but this is not correct. For all I know I firmly believe the Big Bang Theory is the one that, with our current scientifical knowledge, gathers more empirical evidence supporting it, and I have no reason to come up with any other.

Interesting since there are some atheist (including scientist) who rejects the Big Bang and they claim it because of the evidence. Of course they are in the minority.

 

[TankAss95]

We could have all the scientific evidence in the world to disprove the existence of God but theists will still say that God created everything.

Rubbish. The Christian Monotheistic view is that God is the author of science. Science will never disprove the existence of a deity - even if we know everything about nature we still can't rule out the hypothesis that there is a mind behind it.

Because it doesn't have any evidence behind it.

And you don't have any evidence to support your naturalistic view (which I assume you have).

So does religion.

Sorry, but religion is too vague.

Until you can differentiate between different religions I cannot accept your argument against mine. I am here to represent Christianity.

The naturalistic viewpoint cannot explain how we can do science - monotheism can by accepting that the almighty is the ultimate reality. And if your not happy with this, consider that understanding isn't necessarily comprehending.

Interesting since there are some atheist (including scientist) who rejects the Big Bang and they claim it because of the evidence. Of course they are in the minority.

I have no problem accepting that the universe was brought into existence through expansion (as this is mentioned in biblical text), I just think there was a mind behind it.

 

[superbike81]

Rubbish. The Christian Monotheistic view is that God is the author of science. Science will never disprove the existence of a deity - even if we know everything about nature we still can't rule out the hypothesis that there is a mind behind it.

Rubbish? Why do you say rubbish when you just said the exact same thing I said in different words?

Let me try again. We could have all the scientific evidence in the world to disprove that there is a god, but theists would simply say "God created that evidence."

Is that a better way to say it?

 

[Downhill Dino]

Jumping out of the little debate and just responding to the OP: Never have, and never will.

As anyone else, I'd like evidence of such an existence. 'Til then, I'm not going to believe a single thing about it.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I have no problem accepting that the universe was brought into existence through expansion (as this is mentioned in biblical text), I just think there was a mind behind it.

My point was there are Big Bang "unbelievers" and the fact no one has direct evidence of such an event. I have no problem with it either yet man's science has it's limits.

 

[dylansan]

Tankass, I would appreciate if you responded to this post I made earlier when you get the chance:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6574493#post6574493

We were having a pretty interesting discussion. 👍

 

[superbike81]

The "Big Bang" is just one theory of how everything started. The idea of "God" is also a theory, we will never be able to conclusively prove that God exists just like we will never be able to conclusively prove that the "Big Bang" happened.

Hell, we can't even conclusively prove what killed the dinosaurs, how can we ever hope to prove what created life to begin with? I'm perfectly comfortable with saying "I don't know" but I guess many people need that feeling of understanding so they develop theories such as "God" and "The Big Bang."

 

[HP]

The "Big Bang" is just one theory of how everything started. The idea of "God" is also a theory, we will never be able to prove that conclusively prove that God exists just like we will never be able to conclusively prove that the "Big Bang" happened.

Hell, we can't even conclusively proved what killed the dinosaurs, how can we ever hope to prove what created live to begin with? I'm perfectly comfortable with saying "I don't know" but I guess many people need that feeling of understanding so they develop theories such as "God" and "The Big Bang."

(insert bastardized Greek philosophers quote here)

Wisest is he who admits he knows nothing...

HP's daily +1 billion goes to Superbike 👍

 

[niky]

It could be argued that science origionated from a monotheistic culture, accepting that the reliable, consistant laws of nature were given by a divine law giver. If there were no stability of laws in nature, then science wouldn't work. Accepting the existance of a divine law giver is a pathway to rational thinking - you have to prove to me that there is a more suitable world view, regardless of evidence.

I've already pointed out rationalism and Confucian thought as proof for the belief in ethical absolutes without a God. It would be too long and complicated to go into the origins of science here, but the tradition of science and critical thought did not originate within a monotheistic culture. Instead, it started with the Greeks, who sought to understand the Universe by process of rational thought alone. There's an entire book's worth of discussion there that is way beyond the scope of this thread.

As I said, knowledge originates from observations and eventually assumptions which we build foundations upon. What's different with doing this with the origin of everything? Why do you back the God hypothesis into a corner when we don't yet (and probably never will) know the ultimate reality of everything?

We don't have to disprove him. The onus is on the believer to prove his theory. On that count, with the lack of material evidence for a God who is claimed to have material manifestations in the past (Burning bush, burning pillar, walls of Jericho, sun stays still in the sky, etcetera) at least indicates that that particular version of God is not as likely as some others.

Again, i reiterate: I do not believe that there is no "Ultimate Source" which could be construed as "God". I just don't believe in pretending I know what that "Ultimate Source" is.

The case isn't science v religion, it's more a battle between the world views of naturalism/materialism and theism. I cannot stress this enough.

Why are we still talking then? We've already stated that science and atheism are not the same thing as materialism. And that the theory of materialism is contradicted by science. Naturalism is another thing altogether.

All scientific explanations fail when questions of origins are introduced.

Science only fails where it predicts it will fail. Science tells us that it cannot tell us what happened before the beginning. The reasons why after this.

My response is that there is no evidence that it is not - and that's not a trick of the non-falsiable. After the 1920's, its been largely accepted that our observable existance (however small a fraction it may be to all reality) had a beggining. Everything else I've came across is speculative. An eternal existance of nature as we know it has been widely rejected in a respectable sense.

An eternal existence for the Universe has been rejected. Not an eternal existence for the medium in which the Universe exists.

And if all our observable existance was eternal in a non-repeating sense as I have previously mentioned, then there wouldn't be such a high range of different temperatures - everything would be constant.

It's a good thing nobody claims the Universe is eternal, eh? Except the theists who think it is?

The idea of infinite chance there would be infinite probability could be accepted, but there must be restrictions to the nature of the variety of possibilities, as it would violate the continuation of infinite chance. This requires more explanation.

No it doesn't. You're the only one here clamoring for restrictions.

You: If there are other Universes, there must be a set of laws that are constant throughout the other Universes.

Science: We know we have laws governing this Universe. We do not know why they are constant over wide areas of space, but we have proof that they do not apply at the quantum level, within black holes, and at the Big Bang. Thus we know that there are instances where those "laws" do not apply. We have no evidence that they are the same outside the Universe or in other Universes. We have no proof that there is anything outside the Universe, in the first place.

All this leads to more questions than answers - a response often brought upon me with my belief in God. It is your choice wether to accept this or not, although I can't accept the naturalistic view. I hope I have explained why.

It's a matter of preference. Even if there were a meta-Universal law, there is no requirement for there to be a law-giver. That's just a matter of semantics.

I haven't heard of the gnostic gospels before - thank's for sharing. I will look into it. Any usefull links?

Here's one:

http://gnosis.org/welcome.html

That contains links to a whole lot of other material. Please read it with an open mind. This covers a lot of stuff that was not chosen for inclusion in the New Testament.

EDIT: Please note that an open mind doesn't mean you have to believe in Gnostic teachings, but rather, it's an invitation to evaluate its relation to Orthodox Christianity. I cite this source only because it contains links to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources of ancient Christian and proto-Christian texts that are not found or referenced by more Orthodox Christian sects (Catholics, Protestants et al).

 

[Schwartz]

I just thought this may be relevant to this conversation. It is an email a professor sent to his students after a class spent discussing religion.

 

[superbike81]

The ironic thing is, is that most "religious bigots" don't even realize they are being bigots. They simply think they are spreading "the word" and couldn't possibly be offending anyone.

 

[jtv90069]

That's a great post Schwartz

 

[Denur]

Thanks for sharing that email Schwartz. I'm not sure whether it is a true letter, but its content does sound familiar. 👍

A judge is in the position of God yet can still be totally ungodly.

If you being around children then you know they will believe what their parents tell them... thus their faith is in their parents and not some strange character. This is why it's not uncommon for a little child to "believe in Santa" but will start to cry when the parent sit their child in Santa's lap. Santa is still a strange to that child.

That is the only important thing here: The child believes its parents when they tell him/her about Santa. Likewise when the parents tell the young child about Christ or Mohamed or the tooth fairy....

Oh, and a child can start to cry for many reasons. Sitting on the lap of a foul-breathed (probably from beer or whiskey), stinking bearded fat bloke, that supposedly can take you away to a far away land, is probably among them. Put me on God's lap and I'll would probably even wet myself from fear and excitement.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

That is the only important thing here: The child believes its parents when they tell him/her about Santa. Likewise when the parents tell the young child about Christ or Mohamed or the tooth fairy....

As a young child I believe my parent about my birthday as well they are my real parents. This doesn't mean it's the same as telling me about Santa or tooth fairy. In fact my parents had no interest in the church yet I do as an adult.

The ironic thing is, is that most "religious bigots" don't even realize they are being bigots. They simply think they are spreading "the word" and couldn't possibly be offending anyone.

I'm always very cautious when people who call other bigots and racist as I seen too many examples of this often applies to the accuser. (this is the same with those accusing others of gossip are often guilty of a gossip themselves).

 

[huskeR32]

And you don't have any evidence to support your naturalistic view (which I assume you have).

I'm going to be completely honest and say that I have no idea what you mean by "naturalism." I've never heard of it until you started using it in this thread, and I've never quite followed what you even mean when you use the word. Sorry that I can't properly debate this term with you.

All scientific explanations fail when questions of origins are introduced.

So does religion.

Sorry, but religion is too vague.

I'm sorry, but coming from you, I find this very ironic and amusing. You constantly use the word "science" as if it's a single, unifying, all-encompassing explanation for a non-theist view of how the world works. Science isn't a thing, it's a method for finding truth.

Until you can differentiate between different religions I cannot accept your argument against mine. I am here to represent Christianity.

I can certainly differentiate between religions. But for the point I was making, it doesn't matter - all religions fail when it comes to questions of origin. For you to latch on to that one semantic detail and try to use it to invalidate my statement - it makes it seem like you're trying to get away from an argument you know you can't win.

But I'll play along. Instead of "So does religion," I guess we can substitute this:

"So does Christianity." - Now, with that lame semantic obstacle out of the way, feel free to address the legitimate point that was already there to begin with.

 

[Denur]

As a young child I believe my parent about my birthday as well they are my real parents. This doesn't mean it's the same as telling me about Santa or tooth fairy.

You must have been a very special child to be able to make that distinction back then, and even remembering that today. 👍

...my parents had no interest in the church yet I do as an adult.

Care to explain where your interest in the church comes from? I was born and raised within a Catholic community (having been a choir boy and all), but my parents were not very religious, nor were my schools (even though these were called to be Catholic and the pastor came to visit once a week). I don't remember ever truly believing in God (I liked the stories from the OT like any other child's book I was read), but from about the age of 11 I had no faith what so ever in any kind of god and was amazed by the gullibility of my peers and elders. That amazement is still there some 33 years later.

I'm always very cautious when people who call other bigots and racist as I seen too many examples of this often applies to the accuser.

Something like the pot calling the kettle black, I guess. But it doesn't make it less or more true though.

 

[fitftw]

One day those of you who right now firmly deny the possibility of there being a god...will come to realize that there really might be one...

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the big bang theory one bit. There is no proof. Any good detective would call me an idiot for believing in it, just like you call religious people idiots for believing in god.

THEY BOTH TAKE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN. If you have faith in the big bang, you could have faith in god just as easily. You weren't alive in Jesus' time, or Moses time. Or at the beginning OF time. To say "I don't believe in god but I do believe in the big bang theory" is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. You have the faith. You're just choosing one outlet for it rather than the other. I don't have the faith for either one, so I stay out of both camps, but I'm open to evidence of proof. I don't go around denying one theory for another. Anything is possible.

Who knows? Maybe the big bang created god? Maybe god created the big bang? Maybe this is all a dream and nothing matters and we're all just killing time until we die.

 

[Tesla]

One day those of you who right now firmly deny the possibility of there being a god...will come to realize that there really might be one...

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the big bang theory one bit. There is no proof. Any good detective would call me an idiot for believing in it, just like you call religious people idiots for believing in god.

THEY BOTH TAKE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN. If you have faith in the big bang, you could have faith in god just as easily. You weren't alive in Jesus' time, or Moses time. Or at the beginning OF time.

There is evidence for the big bang though. Whereas a invisible, intangible skyman (while breaking all the laws of time and space, cause he can) who, in order to get them into his invisible, intangible mansion, requires people to believe him when he says, "Trust me guys, I got you covered if you blindly follow me", is much more realistic.

I'm too tired to grammared. Excuse me.

 

[superbike81]

One day those of you who right now firmly deny the possibility of there being a god...will come to realize that there really might be one...

I'm sorry but I'm not buying the big bang theory one bit. There is no proof. Any good detective would call me an idiot for believing in it, just like you call religious people idiots for believing in god.

THEY BOTH TAKE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN. If you have faith in the big bang, you could have faith in god just as easily. You weren't alive in Jesus' time, or Moses time. Or at the beginning OF time. To say "I don't believe in god but I do believe in the big bang theory" is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. You have the faith. You're just choosing one outlet for it rather than the other. I don't have the faith for either one, so I stay out of both camps, but I'm open to evidence of proof. I don't go around denying one theory for another. Anything is possible.

Who knows? Maybe the big bang created god? Maybe god created the big bang? Maybe this is all a dream and nothing matters and we're all just killing time until we die.

The difference is, no one is claiming "The Big Bang" is absolute fact, everyone knows it is a theory. Religious zealots push religion as if it is absolute fact and there is no disputing it. I admire them for believing in something so strongly that they will pass on that belief to others without ever seeing proof themselves, but that is also what makes them extremely ignorant as well.

 

[fitftw]

I admire them [religious zealots] for believing in something so strongly that they will pass on that belief to others without ever seeing proof themselves, but that is also what makes them extremely ignorant as well.

Extremely well-put. But then again, how do we know for a 100% fact that they HAVEN'T somehow seen god? We are not them. You are not me. I am not you.

Before any of this, the universe was black nothingness. How did the big bang appear from nothing to spark humanity, water, grass, animals, stars, planets...

That goes for god, too. How did god appear from nothing? If they both appeared from nothing, then they are both identical theories for the creation of the universe and one shouldn't be chosen over the other. Unless someone can come up with a third theory that stands apart from "appearing from nothing."

 

[Liquid]

Extremely well-put. But then again, how do we know for a 100% fact that they HAVEN'T somehow seen god? We are not them. You are not me. I am not you.

You've stated in previous posts that this is irrelevant and that people who believe in God are deluded.

Before any of this, the universe was black nothingness.

Proof?

I certainly won't rule out the possibility of infinity.

That goes for god, too. How did god appear from nothing? If they both appeared from nothing, then they are both identical theories for the creation of the universe and one shouldn't be chosen over the other. Unless someone can come up with a third theory that stands apart from "appearing from nothing."

A key idea in Christianity at least, is that God is ever existing. He always was, always has been and always will be. He is omnipotent and omnipresent. He was not created; he simply is numero one in the universe.

But that's for them to believe, not me.