Do you believe in God?

[Schwartz]

He couldn't. Fingerprinting is what all Iranians went through until when Obama came into office. So, every time we went anywhere into America, wherther it be a cruise trip to Alaska, Buffalo (an hour drive away), Florida, anywhere, my parents had to get fingerprints done (My brother and I were born in Japan, so we're good, even though we're Iranian Citizens and not Japanese citizens)

Your logic is highly flawed. So God isn't responsible for that, but he is responsible for an act of kindness by one person?

 

[TheCracker]

Well, he does move in mysterious ways.

 

[Schwartz]

And so does Bono.

 

[Katiegan]

I'm an atheist, but I respect people who are religious. I don't believe that God created the world, or in Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, that kinda stuff. I just don't like it when religious people start preaching at me or try to force their views on me.

I believe things happen for a reason, and I suppose I do believe in some spirit things, just not in God or things in the Bible.

I have read the whole of the Bible before. Except it was the Lolcat Bible.

He couldn't. Fingerprinting is what all Iranians went through until when Obama came into office. So, every time we went anywhere into America, wherther it be a cruise trip to Alaska, Buffalo (an hour drive away), Florida, anywhere, my parents had to get fingerprints done (My brother and I were born in Japan, so we're good, even though we're Iranian Citizens and not Japanese citizens)

So, who's responsible for the negative happenings? Satan? If so, then Satan helped you too. If it wasn't Satan's doing of giving someone the idea to imply the fingerprinting, you wouldn't have missed your flight, therefore you wouldn't have met the woman who gave you free tickets.

 

[kennylmao]

Have any of you guys watched The Sunset Limited?

If you can stand an hour plus of dialog between two person in a room then, give it a look.

 

[ZohsixGT5]

It was on IFC one night a few months back, really good actually.

 

[troyjs]

Yes.

Not only do I believe that God exists, but I can provide logical proofs for the existence of God.

Infact, anyone who believes in the Standard Model of the Big Bang theory, would have to explain the phenomenon of the Big Bang without appealing to any natural state of affairs. 50 years ago, it was possible to believe in the Standard Model, and believe that there was a Universe which pre-existed our own, ie., a cyclic model. However, cyclic models are incompatible with the Standard Model of the Big Band, thanks to the BGV theorem.

Stephen Hawking therefore, has postulated an alternative to the Standard Model, which does not require there to be a non-natural cause of the universe. This theory however, states that time is illusory, and there is no objective past or future. Anyone who is happy with this view of time, could possibly believe in this view of the Big Bang.

For anyone else who believes that time has a real, non-illusory existence, Hawking's solution is not open to you.

Basically:
If the Standard Model is correct, then the Universe's cause is non-natural.

The Standard Model is correct.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe is non-natural.

We now know that some things do not need a cause for their existence. The Universe however, is not one of them -- if the Standard Model is true.

Suppose that the Standard Model is false. Even still, there would be no grounding for the existence of the Universe, simply because it is possible that the Universe never existed at all.

Either the Universe exists for no reason at all, or there is a reason/cause for the existence of the Universe. A person could claim that the Universe existed for no cause or reason at all, however that is just as reasonable as believing that God exists without any evidence at all. So long as we want to be logical and reasonable, all phenomenon require an explanation.

It could be that the Universe is it's own reason for it's existence. That has been suggested by philosophers. However, that theory has been discarded about 50 years ago. Interestingly, most atheist philosophers and logicians today, understand that God is the only conceivable entity that could fulfill that condition of self-existence. Unfortunately, most internet atheists and theists are not up to speed with contemporary logic and philosophy. To simply put the state of modern philosophy into perspective, it is uncontroversial even among atheist philosophers, that if God is even possible or coherent, then God by logical necessity exists.

The questions which are trying to be answered today, are: Is God a possible being? And: Is the Standard Model correct? If the answer to any of those 2 questions is 'Yes', then it would be more reasonable and educated to believe that God does in fact exist.

Apart from that, the Cambridge philosopher and mathematician has demonstrated that the probability of God's existence is greater than 0.5. Most people though, are not satisfied by a probabilistic argument, and rightly so. However, suffice it to say, atheism is no longer seen as 'the' intellectual position in the academy, as it was last century. These days, many physicists and biochemists are deists or theists, and even the philosophy departments, which were the fortresses of atheism in the past, are seeing more theists graduate and go on to obtain PHDs. For example, the former President of the American Philosophical Association. Fancy that, a Christian being the President of the American Philosophical Association, and a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to boot.

What can be taken away from this atleast, is that theism is a very well-respected position in the academic community, and is taken seriously. Ofcourse, if one only reads popular level books, then one would think that this was not the case.

kind regards

 

[ShobThaBob]

That's a pretty outlandish first post.

 

[niky]

How does the Standard model require a non-natural cause for the Big Bang... at all? The only disjunct between the Standard Model and the Big Bang is simply that it can't describe or predict or even begin to predict anything about conditions prior to or leading up to the Big Bang.

 

[homeforsummer]

Oh lordy, where to start?

Not only do I believe that God exists, but I can provide logical proofs for the existence of God.

Apparently not.

Infact, anyone who believes in the Standard Model of the Big Bang theory, would have to explain the phenomenon of the Big Bang without appealing to any natural state of affairs.

1) There is no "standard model of the big bang theory". There is only a standard model of particle physics, and there is a big bang theory. The two can overlap, but they are not directly related.

2) Nobody "believes" in the standard model or the big bang theory. There is no need for belief, as scientists like to use "evidence" to describe scientific theory.

3) The standard model itself is incomplete, so cannot be expected to prove or disprove any theory of the big bang.

50 years ago, it was possible to believe in the Standard Model, and believe that there was a Universe which pre-existed our own, ie., a cyclic model. However, cyclic models are incompatible with the Standard Model of the Big Band, thanks to the BGV theorem.

Ah, that old chestnut. Sorry, BGV theorem does not show the universe had a definite start, so cannot be used to disprove the cyclic model. Unsurprisingly though, it's frequently misunderstood and often used by people like yourself to try and prove something that is unprovable.

Have a watch of this vid. Rather nicely explains it all.

​

Basically:
If the Standard Model is correct, then the Universe's cause is non-natural.

The Standard Model is correct.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe is non-natural.

First, this assumes that the standard model is correct. It might be correct, but then - as stated above - it's an incomplete model, so alone it cannot be used as a basis to describe the physics of a big bang scenario.

Second, you've used a common logical fallacy, known as affirming the consequent. Even if the standard model were utterly infallible, it is not the sole arbiter of the universe's existence. There are other theories to describe how particles work, so the standard model being correct does not automatically suggest the universe's cause is non natural. Of course, in your eyes it does, because you've misused the conclusions of the BGV theorem.

We now know that some things do not need a cause for their existence. The Universe however, is not one of them -- if the Standard Model is true.

Suppose that the Standard Model is false. Even still, there would be no grounding for the existence of the Universe, simply because it is possible that the Universe never existed at all.

Either the Universe exists for no reason at all, or there is a reason/cause for the existence of the Universe.

Yet another logical fallacy. Just because the universe exists, it does not require a "reason" for its existence. And vice versa. What you're doing is using another logical fallacy, called denying the antecedent.

If the universe never existed, then it would have no reason to exist.

The universe exists.

Therefore, it must have a reason to exist

A person could claim that the Universe existed for no cause or reason at all, however that is just as reasonable as believing that God exists without any evidence at all.

No it isn't. Nobody makes the claim that the universe exists for no reason at all, because science isn't expected to provide answers for why something exists, only how. The universe existing in its current form - and a large body of evidence suggesting that the big bang was the cause - is enough of a "reason" as anyone needs.

Believing that God exists without evidence is fine - that's the foundation of belief: it doesn't require evidence, only faith. But when people like yourself come along and throw out logical fallacies left, right and centre to try and prove that god exists, that doesn't work.

You cannot prove that god exists by citing the lack of proof in a particular scientific discipline. That's not how the burden of proof works.

So long as we want to be logical and reasonable, all phenomenon require an explanation.

To a point, but that doesn't mean that gaps in the current scientific knowledge are open for filling with "must be god, then".

It could be that the Universe is it's own reason for it's existence. That has been suggested by philosophers. However, that theory has been discarded about 50 years ago.

[Citation needed]

Incidentally, I think you're mistaking the value of philosophy. It's logical, but it isn't scientific.

The questions which are trying to be answered today, are: Is God a possible being? And: Is the Standard Model correct? If the answer to any of those 2 questions is 'Yes', then it would be more reasonable and educated to believe that God does in fact exist.

No.

The first question requires only belief, and the validity of the standard model has absolutely no bearing on the existence of a deity.

Apart from that, the Cambridge philosopher and mathematician has demonstrated that the probability of God's existence is greater than 0.5.

[Citation needed]

However, suffice it to say, atheism is no longer seen as 'the' intellectual position in the academy, as it was last century. These days, many physicists and biochemists are deists or theists, and even the philosophy departments, which were the fortresses of atheism in the past, are seeing more theists graduate and go on to obtain PHDs. For example, the former President of the American Philosophical Association. Fancy that, a Christian being the President of the American Philosophical Association, and a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to boot.

What can be taken away from this atleast, is that theism is a very well-respected position in the academic community, and is taken seriously. Ofcourse, if one only reads popular level books, then one would think that this was not the case.

Unsurprisingly, you're taking the oft-taken position that atheist should automatically equal scientist (or vice-versa), in order to prove that since some scientists are also theists, atheism must be incorrect.

In fact, I can present that using the handy format you used earlier, during another logical fallacy:

If some scientists are also theists, then God must exist.

Some scientists are theists.

Therefore, God must exist.

See how that works? And see how ridiculous it looks when you use that argument? Now go have a look at your standard model/creator argument and see how ridiculous that one looks.

 

[TankAss95]

That's a pretty outlandish first post.

And that response isn't very irenic. How disappointing.

troyjs, welcome to GTPlanet!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Not only do I believe that God exists, but I can provide logical proofs for the existence of God.

Really, so where exactly can I see this "God"?

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

How could anyone trust the bible as a source of information?

There are books claiming to know the exact ingredients of Elvis' fried chicken recipe and they are all differant (written while he was alive). Elvis is only dead a few years and there are claims he has been seen alive!

If you were told that your friend was executed yesterday, then he knocks on your door would you presume that you were misinformed or that something supernatural happened?




Stephen Colbert "owns" Richard Dawkins xD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WpGC5lPKhM

 

[BobK]

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

👍

Great quote you found there, PR1VATEJ0KER!

 

[TankAss95]

👍

Great quote you found there, PR1VATEJ0KER!

I have to disagree. The quote is based on the assumption that goodness is somehow arbitrary to God (or rather the Gods). We Christians believe that goodness itself is grounded in God's necessary nature.
A maximally great being would not be limited to some arbitrary law or "code". A maximally great being also wouldn't contradict itself. Goodness, love, justice... These properties are founded upon the very nature of God.

Plus, are there any persons here who claim to have lived a noble life? We are all sinners, wether we like to accept it or not.

 

[DK]

We Christians believe that goodness itself is grounded in God's necessary nature.

This is a God that, if powerful enough to prevent disasters (which would obviously be bad) and knowledgeable enough to know that they're happening, allows them to happen. Sounds 100% benevolent to me.

 

[Famine]

Plus, are there any persons here who claim to have lived a noble life? We are all sinners, wether we like to accept it or not.

I'm just wondering what sins my daughter's committed in her ignoble, 9 month life.

 

[DK]

Don't tell me burping is a sin now.

 

[TankAss95]

This is a God that, if powerful enough to prevent disasters (which would obviously be bad) and knowledgeable enough to know that they're happening, allows them to happen. Sounds 100% benevolent to me.

That's just the problem of pain brought up again.

I'm just wondering what sins my daughter's committed in her ignoble, 9 month life.

I'm sorry if that I offended you. I suffer from an inadequacy to explain stuff.

As soon as someone is old enough to recognise the difference between good and evil they are accountable for their actions, given that they have the freedom to act or the ability to freely refrain from acting of course. Agree?

If you have the ability to read this post, then surely you also have the ability to recognise the moral law. Here's the thing - everyone who does recognise it knows they don't live up to it. If you think you have lived up to it, then as C. S. Lewis put it you should go somewhere else as nothing I have to say to you has any benefit.

One of the main evidences I think shows that we are sinful is because of our pride. We want to be better than everyone else solely for the reson of putting ourselves above others.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sorry if that I offended you. I suffer from an inadequacy to explain stuff.

As soon as someone is old enough to recognise the difference between good and evil they are accountable for their actions, given that they have the freedom to act or the ability to freely refrain from acting of course. Agree?

I was under the impression that the Christian church still very much holds with the concept of original sin (ridiculous as that is as a concept), as such age has nothing at all to do with it.

You advocate a religion that condemns every person as a sinner unless they bow down and follow a set of rules designed to ensure that organisation remains the central focus of peoples lives. I for one could never condone such a clear attempt to blackmail and control children (or anyone for that matter).

If you have the ability to read this post, then surely you also have the ability to recognise the moral law. Here's the thing - everyone who does recognise it knows they don't live up to it. If you think you have lived up to it, then as C. S. Lewis put it you should go somewhere else as nothing I have to say to you has any benefit.

Who's moral code?

One of the main evidences I think shows that we are sinful is because of our pride. We want to be better than everyone else solely for the reson of putting ourselves above others.

Given that you seem to be applying a blanket failing against everyone I think this says more about yourself that the human race at large.

I don't want to be better that everyone else at all, its a pointless and unreachable aim and totally counterproductive. I want to be the best I can at the endevours I set myself and while I may use others as role models in that aim the last thing I want to do is put myself above them.

Frankly that this is the default you fall onto as an example is quite disturbing in itself.

 

[homeforsummer]

Here's the thing - everyone who does recognise it knows they don't live up to it.

It depends how you define it. I prefer to live by my own morals than arbitrary ones of some church or other. And since I don't break my own morals, I do wonder what code I'm breaking exactly.

The code of a being I don't believe in? Can't say it bothers me much. Roughly about as worried as receiving a lump of coal for Christmas for being "bad", from that other construct of our imaginations, Santa Claus.

One of the main evidences I think shows that we are sinful is because of our pride. We want to be better than everyone else solely for the reson of putting ourselves above others.

Speak for yourself. I've no desire to be better than anyone else as long as I can achieve my personal aims. If I'm happy, why would being "better" than someone else be a concern of mine?

Feel free not to tar us with your own "sins".

 

[Famine]

I'm sorry if that I offended you. I suffer from an inadequacy to explain stuff.

As soon as someone is old enough to recognise the difference between good and evil they are accountable for their actions, given that they have the freedom to act or the ability to freely refrain from acting of course. Agree?

And at what age is that? Or do you mean "developed enough" - and I'd ask what level of development that would be.

Many animals can recognise right from wrong - "good" from "evil", by your terms - in certain situations. Are they accountable?

If you have the ability to read this post, then surely you also have the ability to recognise the moral law.

The what?

If you think you have lived up to it, then as C. S. Lewis put it you should go somewhere else as nothing I have to say to you has any benefit.

I suffer from an inadequacy to explain stuff.

Quite.

One of the main evidences I think shows that we are sinful is because of our pride.

Do you not take pride in your appearance, your work and yourself? Do you not take pride in even knowing right from wrong? Is this sinful now?

 

[TankAss95]

And at what age is that? Or do you mean "developed enough" - and I'd ask what level of development that would be.

Feeling guilty when doing stuff is a vague guide to knowing what is wrong.

Many animals can recognise right from wrong - "good" from "evil", by your terms - in certain situations. Are they accountable?

They don't have free will. They aren't accountable.
A lion doesn't murder a zebra.

The what?

The Moral Law is the law of good conduct or fair play. Older thinkers referred to it as the "Natural Law". Right now I am subject to several various physical and biological laws I can't disobey just as a falling rock can't disobey gravity. There is one law that I can disobey though - aka the Natural or Moral Law.

Morality is objective, as you've agreed.

Quite.

Sorry.

Do you not take pride in your appearance, your work and yourself? Do you not take pride in even knowing right from wrong? Is this sinful now?

There's a difference in feeling good about a job well done and being proud (at least in the sense of pride I'm meaning). Vanity might be a better word to use.

 

[Exorcet]

Feeling guilty when doing stuff is a vague guide to knowing what is wrong.

What triggers guilt can vary wildly depending on what someone is lead to believe.

As far as pride or vanity goes, I personally can't say that I care much about being better than other people.

 

[Famine]

Feeling guilty when doing stuff is a vague guide to knowing what is wrong.

The feeling of guilt is a behaviour - and a learned one at that.

It's also wrong - psychopaths do not feel guilt but they know what is right and what is wrong. They just don't care.

They don't have free will.

Wild animals have just about the most amount of free will possible.

Also, my dog does a great guilty face when she's done something she knows is wrong. Of course I've taught her what's right and wrong and how to feel guilt. But then I'm a sinner so it's probably worth ignoring my concepts of right and wrong.

The Moral Law is the law of good conduct or fair play. Older thinkers referred to it as the "Natural Law". Right now I am subject to several various physical and biological laws I can't disobey just as a falling rock can't disobey gravity.

Those are scientific laws - a very specific term. Nothing to do with right, wrong or codification.

There is one law that I can disobey though - aka the Natural or Moral Law.

There's lots of laws you can disobey. Road traffic law, for instance. Or Murphy's Law. You're still not making any sense.

Morality is objective, as you've agreed.

I think you'll find that's as I've argued. And I also argued that it's independent of law...

There's a difference in feeling good about a job well done and being proud (at least in the sense of pride I'm meaning). Vanity might be a better word to use.

It might, but then you couldn't pontificate about it. Saying that we're all sinners because of pride makes for a much better, punchier soundbite. Saying that we're all sinners because of vanity doesn't - you'll find all sorts of people saying "Wait a minute... vanity? I don't even own a mirror and I'm being compared to those tossers off Jersey Shore and supermodels?"

You get to make more people feel guilty if you say that pride is a sin. Which is the goal, really. Pity it's wrong, but that's never stopped it before.

 

[XoravaX]

I don't honestly get what the Catholic church and other conservative sects are trying to achieve with the sin thing.
I understand that doing wrong is against God's will, but how come everyone is sinful by default? Doesn't it also make Jesus sinful as he was born as a human too? I think that the people's actions are what define them, but not that it would matter either, as it's God's mercy which saves, not the actions of the people.

Just my Protestant two cents.

And I also argued that it's independent of law...

Isn't it that the law helps people to refrain from doing wrong, though? Holding people from relying on their moral instinct alone, or so to say? It also is somewhat a clear line of what's acceptable as a personal moral view.

 

[Sureboss]

I don't honestly get what the Catholic church and other conservative sects are trying to achieve with the sin thing.

Control and nothing else.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

As soon as someone is old enough to recognise the difference between good and evil they are accountable for their actions, given that they have the freedom to act or the ability to freely refrain from acting of course. Agree?

You can't create new rules or excuses for this old book, it is what is.

I'm just wondering what sins my daughter's committed in her ignoble, 9 month life.

In an actual christian world a young child stranded on an Island,
through no fault of their own, would not get into heaven.

Why would anyone presume a child guilty of anything?
This definately wrong or at least horrible.

I wouldn't worship a horrible creator.
(Actually I wouldn't worship anything, something about being a servant isn't appealling)

 

[Peasantslayer]

How could anyone trust the bible as a source of information?

There are books claiming to know the exact ingredients of Elvis' fried chicken recipe and they are all differant (written while he was alive). Elvis is only dead a few years and there are claims he has been seen alive!

I find it baffling that people can believe in God so strongly, no matter what you say there is no convincing them because they come up with some sort of ambiguous answer which was never mentioned in the Bible. It would be nice though to blindly believe that you are actually going somewhere when you're on your death bed. I'm not saying a God is impossible but improbable.

 

[RalliArt/////]

I understand that doing wrong is against God's will, but how come everyone is sinful by default?

All the children of mankind, although inheriting some desirable traits from their parents, also inherit some undesirable ones. And, without exception, all have been born sinful as a result of their original forefather’s (Adam and Eve) losing their status with God through disobedience.
“Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” Rom. 5:12.

Doesn't it also make Jesus sinful as he was born as a human too?

Jesus was a perfect, sinless human. In this way he was the equivalent of perfect Adam and could serve as the ransom to take away sins. Jesus’ perfect Father (God) transferred the perfect life of his Son to the womb of Mary and the result was a wholly perfect offspring, Jesus. Gal. 4:4.