Do you believe in God?

[Pako]

I don't suppose you've read a single word in this thread that Duke, danoff or I have written about "things scientists have said" and how they are repeatable, demonstrable and require no belief at all because they actually exist independantly of whether you believe them or not?

Scientific proof of some evolutionary process does not discredit the existence or belief in God, however, my belief or faith does not prove the existence of God.

What I believe to be the effects of God in my life does re-enforce my belief system and does nurture my faith. Scientific proof of evolution does not effect my faith or belief in a higher power that I call God, if anything, as I look at the complexities of nature and even my own conscientiousness, your scientific proof also enforces my faith and belief system that God is in control.

 

[Famine]

I have skipped a lot of it, so probably I have But I study engineering and have done my share of physics in the process. In that time I've met several physics professors who are still open to the idea that a large portion of what they've studied is wrong. One even said in a lecture (topic being Schrodinger's wave equation) that all we have are "models" of reality and the creator is probably sitting laughing at the guesses we are making.

Which is excessively peculiar, given that basic physics is pretty immutable (though some of the complex stuff is extremely strange - to steal Hawking, if you know enough about the universe that you understand it, you don't know enough about the universe).

That said, most scientists will happily tell you that we could change our minds entirely, so long as the evidence leads us that way. Using your example of evolutionary theory, thus far all evidence has confirmed the theory and helped us refine it - and no evidence has yet surfaced which contradicts it. However, even if that evidence does turn up it has an awful lot of weight of evidence to counter - it might be that there is a specific part of our understanding that it challenges, but you don't, to borrow a phrase, throw the baby out with the bathwater (as anti-evolutionists would - they say that "n" can't be explained by evolutionary theory, so the whole of evolutionary theory is wrong...)

Scientific proof of some evolutionary process does not discredit the existence or belief in God, however, my belief or faith does not prove the existence of God.

What I believe to be the effects of God in my life does re-enforce my belief system and does nurture my faith. Scientific proof of evolution does not effect my faith or belief in a higher power that I call God, if anything, as I look at the complexities of nature and even my own conscientiousness, your scientific proof also enforces my faith and belief system that God is in control.

Which is fine - but to say that science is as belief-driven as religion is completely erroneous. Which you didn't - but WolfRacer's post did.

 

[Pako]

In science, facts are facts, but don't you agree that conclusions derived from facts can be a belief? I'm not saying that's always the case, but......I think that's what he was getting at. He can explain it for himself.

 

[Famine]

In science, facts are facts, but don't you agree that conclusions derived from facts can be a belief?

No.

 

[Pako]

Why do we have differences of opinion (belief) in the scientific community?

 

[Famine]

When there is a subject where insufficient data exists to resolve all possible conclusions into one probable (or definite) one.

Notable examples of conflict include global warming - there's good evidence which supports both "sides" of the issue, so currently neither can say they are right (which doesn't stop some people [see below]).


Of course there is always room for personal bias, financial incentive and just plain bad science (any science which is conducted with the purpose of finding something out is bad science - but that's not the limit of bad science). However, the scientific community usually does a good job of moderating itself thanks to peer review and, generally as a subject becomes better studied and more results are available, the anomalous results are weeded out (if it can't be repeated remotely using the same circumstances as the original experiment, it can be considered debunked).

 

[Denur]

Why do we have differences of opinion (belief) in the scientific community?

Now this is a subject that deserves its own thread. Just for some reading: click

 

[Duke]

In that time I've met several physics professors who are still open to the idea that a large portion of what they've studied is wrong.

I'm always open to the idea that a large portion of what I've studied is wrong. That's why I continually look for errors or discrepancies in my knowledge and thought process.

But the revised information has to be clearer, more accurate, and more repeatable than the information it replaces. I'm not going to throw everything I've learned out completely just because one book contradicts all the others, without compelling proof.

From my experience much of science, even experimental science is extrapolation of ideas based on the limited observations we can make.

The scientific observations are much less limited and the extrapolation is much less dramatic than many religious faithful would like people to believe. Nonetheless, no scientist of any self-discipline at all is going to claim we know everything about any particular subject. They're always open to new data.

 

[WolfRacer543]

In science, facts are facts, but don't you agree that conclusions derived from facts can be a belief? I'm not saying that's always the case, but......I think that's what he was getting at. He can explain it for himself.

I'm usually the sort of person who comes into these threads and gives pages and pages as to why scientific "fact" is rarely "fact" and at the end of the day to make any use out of it you have to extrapolate to form these "facts". But, I'm tired, this thread has already been going for several hundred posts, and quite frankly I'm sick of maths and physics (probably because I have no life and spend most of my time doing maths, dynamics and fluid mechanics ).

Soooo, I'm gonna slowly and quietly walk away from this discussion with one lthough: These sorts of threads never lead anywhere except to give the arrogant people who think they know everything even more arrogance and leave everyone else with a bitter taste in their mouth. Enjoy

 

[Pako]

I understand your frustration, but find the opinion gathering process of what makes people think the way they do interesting. Sure, no one can unequivocally come to a conclusion and convince the masses one way or the other, but it does give insight into the individual as to why they think what they think.

Sure, there might be some arrogance feeding ego's but we also have experts in their field of scientific study as well as dedicated Christ followers sharing thoughts for the sake constructive conversation. That's what I get out of this thread anyways.

 

[Famine]

These sorts of threads never lead anywhere except to give the arrogant people who think they know everything even more arrogance and leave everyone else with a bitter taste in their mouth. Enjoy

The question is... who are those people? 'Cos they ain't scientists...Allow me to demonstrate:

That said, most scientists will happily tell you that we could change our minds entirely, so long as the evidence leads us that way.

I'm always open to the idea that a large portion of what I've studied is wrong. That's why I continually look for errors or discrepancies in my knowledge and thought process.

But the revised information has to be clearer, more accurate, and more repeatable than the information it replaces. I'm not going to throw everything I've learned out completely just because one book contradicts all the others, without compelling proof.

[...]

Nonetheless, no scientist of any self-discipline at all is going to claim we know everything about any particular subject. They're always open to new data.

Two scientifically-minded people, with at least two degrees in science. Both of whom say "Heck no we don't know everything, and will change our position if our position is show to be untenable."

In my experience, the arrogant people who think they know everything aren't the scientists...

 

[Pako]

I said,

Why do we have differences of opinion (belief) in the scientific community?

When there is a subject where insufficient data exists to resolve all possible conclusions into one probable (or definite) one.

Exactly.

 

[Duke]

But the number of subjects with no data at all is infinite. Why does God get a free pass to existence? There is no data demonstrating God's existence - just belief and insistence.

 

[Pako]

That's a good question. Why does my God get so much attention when the spaghetti monster just ends up on my plate?

 

[Famine]

You haven't been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

 

[Pako]

, or have I?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Like the world being made in 6 days, a mere 7,000 years ago? Is that explaining it with any degree of accuracy at all?

I don't know for sure if that is literal. On the other hand I think it is more likely than evolution.

You mean, correlatable, like the parts of the Bible that directly contradict each other?

These apparent contradictions are clearly explained.

Or you mean correlatable, like where we were forbidden to eat shellfish and required to stone homosexuals to death, but now we can chow down on lobster and just tell the homos to not be gay?

All men are called to repent and be saved. Homo, Hetero, Shmomo, or other wise. Your predisposition, flavor, or brand of sin is irrelavant. All have sinned and according to him,(GOD) must be saved to inherit (have a part) in the Kingdom he has claimed he will establish.

What has religion ever solved? What?

Again I don't know about religion, but even so, you are quick to point out any shortcomings, but do you ever stop to consider the positive restraining and orderly influence it has and has had in the World.

Has it ended sin? Has it ended conflict? Has it solved disagreement?

Not yet. Sometimes. Sometimes.

I maintain that religion has created more of those things than it has ever "solved".

I don't agree. I have no doubt it would be a lot worse without it than with it.

Yeah, burning the Library of Alexandria enlightened people real well. You do realize that little bit of faith-driven vandalism set the human race back about a thousand years in terms of technology, medicine, science, and art.

Ask Galileo how good it feels to be "enlightened".

Again that is a single incident, Obviously carried out under false pretenses.

Oh, you mean "fit", like the Creation story "fits" the fossil record? Like the animals mentioned in the Bible "fit" the existence of dinosaurs? Like 2 of every species on Earth (which number in the millions for insects alone) "fit" in a wooden boat made by a guy and a couple of his sons?

I could go on, but I assume you get the point.

For you or me it sure is improbable, but if he is who he says he is then I don't see the problem.

What has faith provided in the big picture? Has faith provided peace and plenty? Has faith provided understanding? Has faith provided technology and medicine?

Yes, I believe it has.

Faith has provided some individual people with perceived security and insulation against the difficulties of life. But on a much larger scale, it has also provided utterly pointless warfare and conflict. And it has done nothing about disease or hunger.

Quite the contrary, yes it has.

I'll try to explain this one more time:

• There is no physical, measurable evidence that god exists in any form.
• The only evidence that the Judeo-Christian God exists is found in the scripture of the Bible, and this is not evidence at all, but merely a written assertion that He exists in this form.
• Other religions also have holy texts that assert that their version of God is correct.
• The amount of physical, measurable evidence in favor of each version is equal: zero.
• Therefore, in choosing to decide for the existence of one version, you have absolutely no data to choose against any of the other version.

And I will repeat once again, since he(GOD) clearly states he is a "Spirit" being and no man has seen him, other than as represented in the person of Jesus Christ, you will have to adjust your criteria to accommodate him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:23-25

Once you choose to believe in one thing without any data, you have no logical reason not to believe to believe in other things without data.

So you are saying, all Data is the same, and there is no way to discern between it,
or you are saying the content of what is written is inadvertently unanalyzable and/or undiscernable. Neither sounds objective or logical to me.

As a smart man once said: "Once you truly understand why you dismiss everyone else's gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I'm not dismissing anything, I'm only testifying about the one I know.

...in the Bible. With no evidence other than the Bible itself. With no strength to the claim other than the claim itself. With no proof the Bible was not written by plain, ordinary men, without divine inspiration. Man defined the God and defined sin, so of course they defined the way to avoid their sin as following their God.

Either that ....or..... GOD did define it just as he claims he did.

So we're bad because an uppity angel with horns and a tail tricks us into being bad? It doesn't seem to me that the author of that story knows anything about human psychology.

It doesn't sound like you do either.
He tricks you by the very thing you think is so strong and impenetrable.
When in fact it is often weak, frail, and powerless.
According to GOD the problem started when they ate the fruit from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil.
Therefore acquisition of knowledge and discernment with application of it are obviously two different things.
I know you're gonna love this next one:
Proverbs 3:5 (Amplified Bible) Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding.
Why do you think he would make such a statement as that?

Almost the entire population of the world used to believe the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around our planet. Why should that massive quantity of belief affect the reality of the truth in any way?

It didn't. Although I think you may have just answered my question.

But it is self-referential: it only exists within the system of religion you happen to believe. You cannot demonstrate the existence of God with anything other than your repeated assertion that He exists. You read a book that proclaims itself to be true, and say that claim proves itself to be true. It is a closed system of circular reasoning that goes nowhere beyond itself.

To a degree you are correct. I said its up to each person to determine for themselves whether it is true or not. The only way I know to do that is read it for yourself.

My assertions are strictly what I have determined based on the content of what is written and why. Certainly at this point for me, it is a foregone conclusion. My perspective is no longer from examination, but from the reality I now enjoy in it. In that respect your right, its a closed system, but only because I know him and those outside the relationship do not. However it is not of reasoning now as during examination, but rather of relational progression.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I can appreciate this, to a certain extend that is.

If I understand your post correctly, you claim to have read the Bible with an open mind and came more and more convinced that the Book must have been written by a god (whatever a god is, there are quite a few definitions around).

Any Great Manipulator can achieve the same thing though, through scripture, speech and/or actions. Throughout the ages there are plenty of examples of people with this ability, like Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler, Bhagwan, Koresh, Copperfield and Geller. Just to name a few and each with his (where are the women?) own agenda, be it good, evil or merely entertainement.

I remember an experiment with a class of students who had to qualify their personal horoscope. They were amazed how well their own horoscope fit their person and were even more amazed when it turned out that all had been given the very same horoscope.

It is so very easy, for some, to make belief so many people anything you want them to believe. And the person(s) who wrote the Bible was among them. That is what I believe, strongly.

You've been had my friend, but if believing in your God and all He stands for, makes you a happy person, that's fine by me.

I think you bring up a very interesting point and one I believe plays a major role in many peoples refusal to even consider the concept that there is a GOD or that he could be who he claims to be. Not just on this thread either, but elsewhere as well.(I have known many) The fact that there are Charlatans, Con men, schemers, Madoffs, etc. in every walk and profession paralyses some people with complete and total cynicism. Particularly in the area of Faith-Based, Spiritual, or Religious Institutions, since for obvious reasons, being faith based the immediate assumption is "it must be a scam". Ultimately and sadly, many will never know the reality of any Faith initiative since they are permanently and prejudicially predetermined as to the motivation in advance.
To some also it is a convenient and excusatory refuge from conscience or financial commitment.

I would respectfully disagree with you. It sounds like God is actively making good on his promise to SuperCobraJet. 👍

Thanks for the backup

 

[Danoff]

Oh for sure, no debate there. If I didn't believe that Jesus was who he said he was, I'd be on the other side of the fence in a flash.

I would challenge you to do the same, but instead of Jesus just being a man, imagine him as the Son of God with the authority to grant forgiveness of all your sins and acceptance of all your short comings with eternal life as the reward of your belief.

That might give you some insight into the mind and emotion of a Christ follower.

Whenever I try to do that I always end up thinking that many followers of Christ are not sufficiently fanatical. If I truly believed that Jesus was who he said he was, I would devote my entire life to religion.

 

[Keef]

It seems like many people only "truly believe" when they realize that, oops, they just did something they probably shouldn't have done, like screamed at their kid, or broke the law, or picked up the quarter someone dropped and walked away with it. So basically they only "believe" when they want an easy way out.

 

[Rotary Junkie]

we have are "models" of reality and the creator is probably sitting laughing at the guesses we are making

Beyond "I think, therefore I am", we are making assumptions.

We assume what we see to be reality to be reality.

So either the reality we see is indeed reality (likely), or it's effectively The Matrix.

However, all our guesses are about correct, so I think the former is a better explanation.

What has no explanation is what happens when you die; it is impossible for anyone or anything to comprehend the idea of not existing and it will always be so; religion conveniently avoids this issue. Along with being a very good control for society.

 

[SomeStrangeSin]

to me i beileve that there is some form of god but i dont think any religion is correct about it.
i watched this documentary of a scientific beilef (dont remember the name of the theory) is that there is 7 - 12 dimensions and our universe was created by 2 demonsions bumping into each other which created so much energy that is where are universe came from and even if this is true who created the 7-12 universes? and who created the gases and atoms and neutrons that was used to create the dimensions. to me scientist can be 100% correct but they can never say what started everything from nothing. thats like taking a blank peice of paper and hoping something starts drawing itself. there has to be a hand. god could be a gas for all i know but i do beileve there is something some force.

i get brain farts when i sit and think about how life came out of nowhere and space and universes and all that it stresses me out.

the other night i had a argument with this christian enthusiast. i eventually said that how is it ok for a pedophile who molested multiple children to repent later on and go to heaven yet because i dont beileve in christianity and live my life a good person i am going to burn in hell. her reply was "cause we have a awesome forgiving god"
i just though that was hilarious.

 

[Pako]

It seems like many people only "truly believe" when they realize that, oops, they just did something they probably shouldn't have done, like screamed at their kid, or broke the law, or picked up the quarter someone dropped and walked away with it. So basically they only "believe" when they want an easy way out.

Seems like that would be the worst time to start believing.

 

[Exorcet]

to me i beileve that there is some form of god but i dont think any religion is correct about it.
i watched this documentary of a scientific beilef (dont remember the name of the theory) is that there is 7 - 12 dimensions and our universe was created by 2 demonsions bumping into each other which created so much energy that is where are universe came from and even if this is true who created the 7-12 universes? and who created the gases and atoms and neutrons that was used to create the dimensions. to me scientist can be 100% correct but they can never say what started everything from nothing. thats like taking a blank peice of paper and hoping something starts drawing itself.

It's String theory in case you wanted to do follow up research.

 

[Famine]

i watched this documentary of a scientific beilef (dont remember the name of the theory) is that there is 7 - 12 dimensions and our universe was created by 2 demonsions bumping into each other which created so much energy that is where are universe came from and even if this is true who created the 7-12 universes?

You've mixed up a couple of theories in one there. Exorcet is partially correct to say String Theory, but that has been superceded by M-Space Theory.

Note that Theory != Belief just because it seems complex - and that this is an example of a situation where there are conflicting scientific views (there were 5 different String Theories) where good evidence supports all views. It's also an example of scientists changing their viewpoint based on new evidence - the situation was resolved by a wholly new theory (M-Space) which, as it turned out, meant that all of the different theories were actually right all along despite looking like they were mutually exclusive.

and who created the gases and atoms and neutrons that was used to create the dimensions.

Dimensions are not made of "gases and atoms and neutrons". Dimensions aren't made of anything.

The four dimensions we all find familiar are forwards, sideways, up and time. What is forwards made of*? How many neutrons are there in time**?

*Nothing
**None

The other seven require a considerable amount of thought - and I get a headache just thinking about thinking about them. But, importantly, that doesn't make them a "belief".

to me scientist can be 100% correct but they can never say what started everything from nothing. thats like taking a blank peice of paper and hoping something starts drawing itself.

Sadly even classical physics agrees that "something" is an inevitable result of "nothing".

there has to be a hand

Why?

 

[Exorcet]

The other seven require a considerable amount of thought - and I get a headache just thinking about thinking about them. But, importantly, that doesn't make them a "belief".

I don't mean to take things too far off topic, but this is a great video.

 

[Famine]

Great. I have a headache now.

 

[V8_spongebob]

Lets say...that you can prove god does not exist to the world. That you have some sort of undeniable, foolproof..proof that god does not exist...would you tell everyone..or not?

Sorry if this sort of thing has ben posted before.

just think about that one..

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Why?

Because to say there isn't, (IMO) you must deny the realities of your own exsistence.

 

[Sureboss]

Wouldn't matter if we did. Belief is irrespective of proof.