Do you believe in God?

[jcm]

A concept is an idea built upon observation of specific occurances.

List some specific occurances to support your 'concept', or admit trolling.

I edited my post so you should read that before you read this.

I originally came up with this concept as a joke I admit, however when I realised that it couldn't be proven wrong I started taking it seriously. Not "I believe in this" seriously, but rather "This is actually very possible".
It is as proveable as any religion, it simply lacks millions of followers. If an absolute monarch of the middle ages came up with this he could very possible have gwnerated millions/billions of followers.

I should probably get to sleep now, however I maintain that rehashing the same thing 6000 times is pointless.

I also understand that 'concept' and 'dream' are probably the wrong choice of words, perhaps 'idea' instead of concept?

I do think the poll is quite useful though, to see who believes in what.

 

[niky]

Unfortunately, the Hindus beat you to it by a couple of centuries. Their religion is based on the idea that we are all a dream of the GodHead, Brahma.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I edited my post so you should read that before you read this.

I originally came up with this concept as a joke I admit, however when I realised that it couldn't be proven wrong I started taking it seriously. Not "I believe in this" seriously, but rather "This is actually very possible".
It is as proveable as any religion, it simply lacks millions of followers. If an absolute monarch of the middle ages came up with this he could very possible have gwnerated millions/billions of followers.

I should probably get to sleep now, however I maintain that rehashing the same thing 6000 times is pointless.
I also understand that 'concept' and 'dream' are probably the wrong choice of words, perhaps 'idea' instead of concept?

I do think the poll is quite useful though, to see who believes in what.

Saw your edit and re-edited, but since things moved on, this is worth re-posting despite my self-edit:


The reason to "bother" as you put it is, as I stated earlier, overwhelming likelihood.

If you accept that there are a set of rules governing our ability to interact with reality (or what we perceive to be reality if you prefer), then you must accept that there are ideas which lead us to make positive steps based on solid observation and predictions, and ideas which contain none of the above and allow none of the above.

And yes, this thread contains some repetition, because those of us who hold my position are often faced with repetitive arguments, which we must respond to in repetitive (but no less logically sound) ways.

Will anyone ever WIN? No.

Could someone considering surrendering his life and free choice to the claims of a two-millenia-old book reconsider his decision?

Maybe.

I'll stick around - that's something worth the wait.

 

[jcm]

Unfortunately, the Hindus beat you to it by a couple of centuries. Their religion is based on the idea that we are all a dream of the GodHead, Brahma.

...

...As a 14 year old in a North American public school, I can honestly say I don't know the following:

Hindus
GohHead
Brahma
That this concept had been invented...


...I'll have to look into this, thanks for telling me.*





My 'religion' of choice is being Agnostic (I think that's the correct word). I don't really care who's right or wrong, and I am willing to accept any and all ideas as possible until proven otherwise. I honestly couldn't care less about who's right and who's wrong. I only post here because I don't like to see that this thread has 6000 posts, it seems ridiculous to me.

It's now 1:35am so now I must go to sleep.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

...

...As a 14 year old in a North American public school, I can honestly say I don't know the following:

Hindus
GohHead
Brahma
That this concept had been invented...


...I'll have to look into this, thanks for telling me.*





My 'religion' of choice is being Agnostic (I think that's the correct word). I don't really care who's right or wrong, and I am willing to accept any and all ideas as possible until proven otherwise. I honestly couldn't care less about who's right and who's wrong. I only post here because I don't like to see that this thread has 6000 posts, it seems ridiculous to me.

It's now 1:35am so now I must go to sleep.

My last thought before I go to bed as well:

It's not at all ridiculous for people to exchange 6,000 individual communications about the nature of existence and belief in God. It's a sign that man is a curious, ever-changing being, who wants to explore the nature of himself.

This is a GOOD thing.

 

[BobK]

I want to bring people to the realisation that scientism (the belief that science is all knowledge, or that science can or will explain everything) is totally false.

Err, why? Who cares? What relevance does this have? Is it anything like that "dualism" thing you trotted out a little while back? Why not just start a "Why I Think Scientism Is Bogus" thread instead of polluting this thread with it?

And, as Sir Peter Medawar said, Science can not hope to answer the elementary questions we asked as a child - What is the meaning of my life? Why am I here? What happens after I die? Science cannot deal with culture, art, ethics, and so forth. Science is the art of the soluble.

He's absolutely correct on this. Scientists themselves will tell you this. We've told you several times now that science doesn't concern itself with the "why am I here" type of questions. Yet you keep bringing it up again and again; you seem to think that it's somehow a failing of science for not addressing these questions.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You're wrong

You are currently in a coma in which you've created an entire society of what you call humans. You've created planets, spieces of animals, plants, languages, conspiracies, songs, vehicles, myths, religions, and more, all within your dream. Your very, very deep subconsious has told you that it's time to wake up, and I'm simply here telling you. I am merely a creation of your imagination telling you to wake up.

Think I've just made this up to mess with? Really? Okay fine, prove my theory wrong. Prove that it isn't possible. Go ahead, try.


And when I say prove me wrong, I really mean prove your deep subconsious wrong.

I was reading up on Philosophy and Kant actually comes to the conclusion that most of the time we assume something exists to prove it exists, which is no proof.

So you can not prove God exists, without believing God exists.
Indeed, you can not prove you exists, without believing you exist.

To come back to the question on God: If you can not prove God exists, why is there so much discussion?
1) People are not conscious you can not prove it.
2) God is a way to see why things are (e.g. your purpose in life) and science is an other way.

For me God is the dogmatic way, the monologue that tells me what to do, there is no purpose in discussing between people about it, if God is, God will tell me.

If you believe in science, you believe in dialogue, logic; you can discuss.

We are trying to mix the 2, dialogue about the dogmatic.
Where I believe we can dialogue with logic, the dogmatic needs no discussion, you believe or you do not, it is only inside of you.
The dogmatic can be an answer to a question where science has no answer yet.

Science is not a religion. It's a method of analyzing the environment and explaining it.

This is where Kant comes in again, I do not believe all he said, but he comes to the conclusion that if we use science to come to conclusions, we all seem to come to the same conclusions, conclusions we can understand. For him that is objective knowledge, even if you can not even prove you exist and even if that science is purely in you head.

 

[codingasm]

"the Holy Ghost is the spirit of God, that's why if anyone says a curse/cusses/bad mouths it, they won't be forgiven for it"

it seems to me that (some ? ) don't believe the Bible, but i have realized that many don't because, they are looking at the new testament,.

lets look a bit earlier.

look at the Old testament. way before Jesus was born. God spoke through the prophets and when we look at the old testament, we see that it leads to Jesus.

evidence that i think is important to note and look into it
1. the Holy Spirit
2. God punishing Egypt, for the way they were treated his people ( and they still have there records/writings that, explain events that happened in Egypt and what God did to them. (also about Moses and what God did through him)
3. Noah's Arc
4. lets look at something very simple, ( Guilt )
when you do something bad, you have guilt and if you are caught in the act, you feel more guilty inside.
when you do something good, like give money to the poor etc, you don't feel guilty about it, instead you feel good that you have done a good deed.
( the rest and more examples are self explanatory )
5. the world is trembling from all the sin that is being done ny the people living on it and it will get worse over time, as more sin is being done (stealing, killing, lying, jerking off, pornography, etc)

and in the Bible it states that the World will fall and won't get back up, because of all the sin that we do,

when you overload a cpu etc, it can't take it and what happens to it ?

there is more, just need to get deeper into the subject

jcm View Post
You're wrong

You are currently in a coma in which you've created an entire society of what you call humans. You've created planets, spieces of animals, plants, languages, conspiracies, songs, vehicles, myths, religions, and more, all within your dream. Your very, very deep subconsious has told you that it's time to wake up, and I'm simply here telling you. I am merely a creation of your imagination telling you to wake up.

Think I've just made this up to mess with? Really? Okay fine, prove my theory wrong. Prove that it isn't possible. Go ahead, try.

here is some info in response to the above quoted text.

if we are sleeping, right ? then how come we can't appear in different areas like we do in a dream ?
how come i can't fly, can't make things appear and disappear in an instinct like in my dream/dreams ?
can't lift tree's, poles, thick steel 50 foot beams without a sweat ?
how come i can't recreate my family members/ relatives that have past away ? if you say I/we created
last time i checked no one else knows what i created in my dream or who i saw in my dream.
and in your dream you can't create all those planets,animals etc and remember them all, its way more than your or my brain can remember etc.
one more thing, haven't you noticed when you dream the feeling you have isn't the same as here in reality
(you feel more like a floating wondering soul) and you don't even know what body you are in, or if you are even in a body, believe me i checked,

was asleep dreaming and was picking something up from the ground, and decide to see who i was and moved away and around to see who i was, and it was not me.

back to reality, we can't move through a body here, have you tried going through a wall last time ?
your body didn't let you, what happened you crashed. why ?(flesh and blood), but in your dreams you move through them, because its your soul, which doesn't have flesh and blood, so according to these facts that i have lived through, you are a Soul, residing in a flesh and blood human body.

 

[Joey D]

2. God punishing Egypt, for the way they were treated his people ( and they still have there records/writings that, explain events that happened in Egypt and what God did to them. (also about Moses and what God did through him)

There is actually zero archaeological evidence to suggest the Egyptians ever enslaved or treated Jewish people bad in anyway. The plagues of Egypt are also debunked pretty easily too. People can write whatever they want and 3,000BP it was no different.

3. Noah's Arc

There isn't an archaeological evidence of this either.

4. lets look at something very simple, ( Guilt )
when you do something bad, you have guilt and if you are caught in the act, you feel more guilty inside.
when you do something good, like give money to the poor etc, you don't feel guilty about it, instead you feel good that you have done a good deed.
( the rest and more examples are self explanatory )

Guilt is something we learn, no human is naturally born feeling. It's constructed by our society's rules and ingrained into use as soon as we exit the womb. If it was a natural human trait you wouldn't have un-remorseful criminals.

if we are sleeping, right ? then how come we can't appear in different areas like we do in a dream ?
how come i can't fly, can't make things appear and disappear in an instinct like in my dream/dreams ?
can't lift tree's, poles, thick steel 50 foot beams without a sweat ?

Dreams != reality. Dreams are just a free flow of thoughts while you're sleeping.

Oh and you can fly, you just have to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

 

[huskeR32]

Science is merely another religion.

Two problems with this:
1. Like TankAss is prone to doing, you're using the term "science" as if it's an all-encompassing term for a specific set of ideas. It's not. Science is not a singular thing that can be argued for or against. Science is a method, a way to find answers through the gathering of evidence.

"Science" is not something that can be proven or disproved. It doesn't make sense to "disprove" a method. You could try to disprove conclusions that are reached through science, but not science itself.

2. Religion is not based on evidence, it relies on faith. Science is the complete opposite. I don't think I need to expand that idea any further.

It is impossible to actually prove that the opposition is wrong.You can give the opposition 'facts', yet these don't really prove anything. Science is merely another religion. It claims it has the answers, and that all other religions are wrong without being able to prove that.

I think you're operating on a misunderstanding of the what it means to "prove" (or disprove) something. Strictly speaking, nothing is ever proven. Instead, there are three possible states for an idea/concept/theory to exist in:

1. The theory has no evidence behind it. It also has no evidence that seems to contradict it. This idea is neither proven nor disproved. Time will tell which way it goes.

2. Evidence directly supporting the theory has been observed, and no evidence has surfaced that directly opposes the theory. The more favorable evidence that is collected, and the longer the theory survives without facing contradictory evidence, the more confidence we can have in the theory. When somebody says something is "proven," this is what they mean. Of course, it will forever remain possible for a theory to be disproved. We can never reach 100% certainty.

3. Evidence that directly contradicts the theory is observed. Unless further examination shows the contradiction to be an anomaly, the theory is effectively "disproved."

To sum up: When, strictly speaking, it's impossible to 100% prove anything, the only logical course of action is to believe in theories that fall into scenario #2. Science helps us identify such theories, and gives us a logical reason to be confident in them. Religion, on the other hand, would have us place an equal emphasis (or possibly a larger emphasis) on theories in scenario #1 (or even scenario #3 if we examine some particular stories of the bible...)

In the end, your statement that "You can give the opposition 'facts', yet these don't really prove anything" is flawed. Our only reasonable choice is to accept those theories that actually are supported by facts, and discard those that aren't.

 

[Lizard]

I believe in god but im not religious for 2 reasons.


1. Every religion says if you support another you will go to hell. I will stay neutral to all of them if thats the case as we don't know truly who preaches the truth.

2. God is nice so why does he need worshiping? Worshiping a single figure is more in line with stalins and Hitlers ideoligies.

 

[Dennisch]

Oh and you can fly, you just have to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

Quoted. For the humor.

 

[Jet Badger]

<...>

I can't see how ancient writings about 'unexplainable' things can be legit. Back then everything that people couldn't understand they explained as either god's gift or his punishment. It's just short-sighted to take those things as granted.

I believe in god but im not religious for 2 reasons.


1. Every religion says if you support another you will go to hell. I will stay neutral to all of them if thats the case as we don't know truly who preaches the truth.

2. God is nice so why does he need worshiping? Worshiping a single figure is more in line with stalins ideoligies.

^this. +1

 

[PeterJB]

I believe in god but im not religious for 2 reasons.


1. Every religion says if you support another you will go to hell. I will stay neutral to all of them if thats the case as we don't know truly who preaches the truth.

Some do, not all of them. Islam for example teaches that there is a place in Heaven for Christians.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Quoted. For the humor.

I LOL'd.

 

[Joey D]

I can't see how ancient writings about 'unexplainable' things can be legit. Back then everything that people couldn't understand they explained as either god's gift or his punishment. It's just short-sighted to take those things as granted.

That's not true, ancient man didn't automatically assume that everything unexplainable was related to god. The common man may have believed this about quite a few things, but that was because there was simply no education for them and they were told what to believe. It doesn't mean they didn't question it. Plus if no one ever questioned things and only accepted it as something by the gods, then we wouldn't have any of the discoveries we know today.

You have to give our ancestors more credit, they were just as curious as we are today. I realize that it is hard to look back on the past and wonder how they managed to do anything without modern technology or modern knowledge. You just need to look at any ancient megalith and you'll see that these people had a pretty good idea of how the world around them work, not to mention and understanding of the universe to some degree.

 

[Touring Mars]

Science is merely another religion.

Rarely is GTP's Darwin Award wrapped up before February's out. Well done, sir.

 

[PeterJB]

That's not true, ancient man didn't automatically assume that everything unexplainable was related to god. The common man may have believed this about quite a few things, but that was because there was simply no education for them and they were told what to believe. It doesn't mean they didn't question it. Plus if no one ever questioned things and only accepted it as something by the gods, then we wouldn't have any of the discoveries we know today.

You have to give our ancestors more credit, they were just as curious as we are today. I realize that it is hard to look back on the past and wonder how they managed to do anything without modern technology or modern knowledge. You just need to look at any ancient megalith and you'll see that these people had a pretty good idea of how the world around them work, not to mention and understanding of the universe to some degree.

👍

I'm still at a loss about how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, or how the Chinese built the Great Wall of China. Incredibly complex designs for their day.

Plus, it was the faith of people like Newton for example that drove them to their research and discoveries about the world we live in. They wanted to find God. I believe Newton actually credited God with the design of Gravitation.

 

[Joey D]

I'm still at a loss about how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, or how the Chinese built the Great Wall of China. Incredibly complex designs for their day.

But really the pyramids were probably constructed using a system of ramps and pulleys to get the blocks in place and probably some sort of sled to transport the blocks. It's all about mechanical advantage and a little knowledge of how physics work. I'm sure you've seen the moving straps where two people can pick up a refrigerator with no issues, or the furniture moving pads that allow you to slide heavy things with ease.

 

[jcm]

Rarely is GTP's Darwin Award wrapped up before February's out. Well done, sir.

It's similar to a religion in some aspects, probably should have clarified that, but it was 1am.

Thank you for the award anyway though...

 

[huskeR32]

It's similar to a religion in some aspects, probably should have clarified that, but it was 1am.

Thank you for the award anyway though...

Please elaborate. Because to my view of things, they are nothing alike.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think jcm means that some people have this idea that science will explain it all, it just takes time to get there.

That's faith. Because a true scientist must keep all options open. At all times. Including that all he thinks is explained by scientific knowledge is ... wrongly explained.

Science is a way (and a method) to acquire knowledge, not an end in itself.

But we've been here, done this, many times over in this thread, haven't we?

 

[huskeR32]

But we've been here, done this, many times over in this thread, haven't we?

You know what we have done before?

This...

I think jcm means that some people have this idea that science will explain it all, it just takes time to get there.

That's faith. Because a true scientist must keep all options open. At all times. Including that all he thinks is explained by scientific knowledge is ... wrongly explained.

The word faith doesn't belong anywhere near science. Science is based upon observations, evidence, logic, reason and experimentation. Faith, by the very definition of the word, operates without any of those things.

So...

I think jcm means that some people have this idea that science will explain it all, it just takes time to get there.

Our experiences tell us that scientific methods eventually do find the answers. This fact is sufficient evidence to believe that science will continue to find the answers. Believing in something based upon evidence is the opposite of faith.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I think we don't agree then. For these reasons:

1 - The idea that science will explain it all (I'll bold it to make sure it won't go un-noticed) is based on nothing, not even in science.

2 - A significant difference between two phrases. One is what you wrote, and it does need fixing:

Our experiences tell us that scientific methods eventually do find the answers.

The second is the result of my own fixing. It shows where we disagree I think:

Our experiences tell us that scientific methods eventually do find the answers.

THE answers? You sure? If you act like a scientist, you cannot be. And all you can say is that, with the
observations,
evidence,
logic,
reason
and
experimentation

SO FAR ...


There's this thing called the scientific current answer.

 

[huskeR32]

1 - The idea that science will explain it all (I'll bold it to make sure it won't go un-noticed) is based on nothing, not even in science.

Cute. But you're still missing the point.

So far, everything that we know has come from science. Religion hasn't found any answers, monkeys typing on keyboards haven't found any answers, and my rear end hasn't found any answers.

Because all knowledge so far has come from scientific methods, the only reasonable assumption is that science will continue to be the source of knowledge. To assume that all of a sudden, something other than scientific methods will start producing answers and evidence for those answers, would be illogical.

2 - A significant difference between two phrases. One is what you wrote, and it does need fixing:

The second is the result of my own fixing. It shows where we disagree I think:

THE answers? You sure?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by getting into the semantics of the word "the" here, but I would say for an answer to qualify as "the" answer, it should be backed by evidence. Science provides evidence, so yes, science provides "the" answers.

If you act like a scientist, you cannot be. And all you can say is that, with the
observations,
evidence,
logic,
reason
and
experimentation

SO FAR ...


There's this thing called the scientific current answer.

EDIT: Since the "current answers" provided by science are the ones that are supported by evidence, I'll continue to believe them.

And me saying that isn't an example of faith in any way whatsoever.

 

[Hun200kmh]

So far, everything that we know has come from science. Religion hasn't found any answers ...


Because all knowledge so far has come from scientific methods ...

That's what you think.

And, may I add, I have no problem with that. But the mere fact that we can conceive what we don't see, that we can aspire to absolutes we'll never reach or even feel, that we can create what was never there before (well, artists do, but I'll guess any music is for you nothing more than a bunch of notes played in succession ... again, I have no problem with that).

All that spirituality the human is capable of may be, for you, just some chemical reaction. As you say, that's cute. But it's not the way I see it though.

 

[Dennisch]

That's what you think.

That is what he knows. And something you should know to. Religion gave us no evidence about anything what so ever. (earth center of the universe etc etc)

 

[huskeR32]

All that spirituality the human is capable of may be, for you, just some chemical reaction. As you say, that's cute. But it's not the way I see it though.

The fact that humans are capable of spiritual feelings doesn't in any way validate those feelings.

And my "that's cute" comment wasn't about people being spiritual, it was about this...

The idea that science will explain it all (I'll bold it to make sure it won't go un-noticed) is based on nothing, not even in science.

...your sarcastic implication that I hadn't read what you wrote the first time.

EDIT: After further thought, I want to address this:

But the mere fact that we can conceive what we don't see, that we can aspire to absolutes we'll never reach or even feel, that we can create what was never there before (well, artists do, but I'll guess any music is for you nothing more than a bunch of notes played in succession ... again, I have no problem with that).

As for that bit in bold: That's exactly what music is. BTW, science can explain every part of it; the frequency differences between notes, why some notes sound good together and some don't, why rhythmic patterns are more pleasing to us than chaotic noises, etc.

That being said, I love music. I can easily get lost in the music that I listen to, and be in awe of the creativity and talent required to make it. Being an atheist does not make me immune to the wonder and beauty of art.

That is what he knows. And something you should know to. Religion gave us no evidence about anything what so ever. (earth center of the universe etc etc)

Exactly.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Religion is not supposed to provide you with with any scientific evidence.

Hence the religious belief being called FAITH.

Of course, some faithful go to the point of thinking that what they believe in provides

THE answer.

But, as I said, those are the faithful that cannot make a distinction between science and belief.

 

[huskeR32]

Religion is not supposed to provide you with with any scientific evidence.

Hence the religious belief being called FAITH.

Of course, some faithful go to the point of thinking that what they believe in provides

THE answer.

But, as I said, those are the faithful that cannot make a distinction between science and belief.

So you first say that it's wrong to believe that science will provide all answers, but then you say that religion is not supposed to provide any answers either.

I have no idea what you're trying to get at.