Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

You won't admit it. Before the big bang, you don't know what happened

I actually have no problem admitting that.

so you must believe something happened.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope.

To believe, is to have faith.

That's one thing you're right about. It's irrelevant to me, though, since I don't believe in anything.

--

Tell me about it. I've seen it with evolution and bang theories.

Of course you followed up your mangling of faith vs. knowledge with an incorrect use of the word "theories."

 

[dylansan]

Speak for yourself.

You would do well to heed this yourself. Not only have you put words in other's mouths many times, you seem to have no problem speaking for god when you decide to judge someones heart or soul or intentions.

It's to the point that, instead of responding to a post, you only point out their "bad choices" that led them to ask it. You did it on the very last page.

 

[FoRiZon]

@ECGadget @Imari

As much as im quite religious, im very agreed with you. Even when youre religious, there is a "Forgiveness before death" everywhere. Even religion says all humans, including prophet and such, its not perfect in any way. Each people have their own sins. If they say they doesn't, they basically lying.

Im not really into that tbh. Im more of an humanist interpretation than total fundamentalist. And tbh, "sins" there means faults. People have their own positives and faults.

 

[DCP]

...and critical thinking.

Religious faith is a refusal to think critically on the subject of existence (the most important subject), no faith = hell right? That's condemnation for exercising critical thinking, something that usually serves us well.

No faith = a persons choice. Unforgiven sins = hell
Don't ever think that if you don't have faith or don't want to serve God, you are going to hell.

I have only posted in this thread once, but that phrase was worth quoting. Whether one believes in God or not, you have to accept there are things you do not know, and that is not wrong. Science is about exploring what we do not know, and yes sometimes it conflicts with religion (different religions with different aspects perhaps) but for the most part it goes hand in hand with it. Some people choose to believe that God caused the big bang. Perfectly okay to believe that. Others believe that the big bang never happened and it was something else caused by God. Again, the Big Bang is not proven (and probably never will be completely proven) so there is nothing wrong in that either. Some believe God does not exist. Again, that is up to them to choose. But we can all admit, that whether it is because it has been hidden by God or we just have not worked it out yet, there are things that we do not know. And as Humans, we want to find out.
Also, @DCP I admire and respect your love for God and your religion. However, saying to people they have a rejecting heart etc I feel is not nice. The reason being is that you believe that God is almighty and all powerful, correct? Now that means that the only one in your eyes who could have the ability to see into the soul of a person - to know exactly what they have in their heart - is God. But you are saying that @GBO Possum has a rejecting one. Surely that is something only God can know. None of us have the right to judge another persons heart. When the final day comes (for those who believe in it) who are we to say what shall happen to us? And if we have no certainty of our future, how can we pass any judgement upon another?

Just my tuppence there.

I appreciate your post ECG. I'm not judging his heart by saying that. I'm merely stating that one doesn't want to understand or accept the Word, and Gods plan for us sinners, and are always ready to defend whatever they see coming from the followers of Christ. This is why I say he has a rejecting heart.
I mean, one would ask, what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart. If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.
Off course I can only hope it's a temporary rejection. You right, only God knows the choice a person has already made.

 

[CodeRedR51]

If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.

Because it's all a bunch of hokey pokey, made up by people in our past that didn't know any better.

It's time to grow up and let your imaginary friends go.

 

[Carbonox]

If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.

There's plenty to lose. Like my free time that should rather be spent on something more useful than worshipping.

 

[dylansan]

If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.

As you have proven, we have our understanding of the world and universe to lose. Something you've given up a long time ago, but which most of us are not willing to do.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I voted yes. Because something started all this and I don't quite fully buy the big bang theory and evolution, but I also don't fully disregard it either, I just want more scientific proof. But even if I get that, it doesn't discredit religion either.

While I voted yes (barely) I do also think that God doesn't really lift a finger to help us. I believe he let's the natural order of things happen; sometimes good things happen to people, sometimes bad things happen to people, but I don't think God gets involved. It's more like a social experiment or something.


Jerome

 

[Imari]

I mean, one would ask, what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart.

My freedom to live my life as I choose.

You choose to live your life the way that your religion tells you to. That doesn't change.

I choose to live my life the way that I think is best. That changes daily. I'm constantly re-evaluating whether my actions are the actions of the sort of person that I want to be, and whether they are helpful and enjoyable for those around me. Often they are not, and I learn and adapt. I am (I hope) a better person today than I was last week, or last year, or ten years ago.

Even were I to put aside my reason and decide that Pascal's Wager isn't horribly flawed and that accepting Christ might be useful, I place far more value on my own freedom to choose my destiny.

I believe that if there ultimately turns out to be a supreme being, of any sort, that they will respect me for the choices that I've made during my life. I would like to think that the world will be a better place for having me here, and that a supreme being will see the value in that.

I'm happy to present my case to any supreme being when the time comes. I don't feel any need to hedge my bets by sucking up to them beforehand. I will live my life as best I can, and what will be will be.

 

[dylansan]

@DCP Do you remember when I asked you if you could explain how scientists managed to predict the discovery of a fossil dated between whales and 47 million year old creatures, which had features in between both? AKA the picture halfway down this page.

I remember you said you couldn't explain it, and that was the end of it. The fact that you have probably never thought anything of it since then shows you aren't interested in the truth. If you don't even attempt to explain the things which contradict your convictions, how can you expect others to be open minded when these contradictions are what holds us back?

The way I see it, there are only a couple of explanations for how scientists are able to consistently make correct predictions based on their theories on a regular basis.

A. God is on the side of the scientists, and helps them make discoveries (despite the fact that many of these discoveries contradict the bible)

B. Scientists are psychic, and use that ability to predict future discoveries so they can seem smarter than they really are.

C. Scientists actually know what they're doing, and the theories they create are actually useful descriptions of how the world really works.

Which is it?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Tell me about it. I've seen it with evolution and bang theories.
No, I worship the One true Living God, not created and not made up. The One that judges the heart, and the One that condemns wickedness, deceit and sin.
Speak for yourself. I've been there, and it's a dead end road.

I for one am impressed you were able to sort through the thousands upon thousands of religions out there, compare them all, and determine you've found the right one. Surely that would eat up a lot of time, and require vast sums of critical thinking... oh.

Don't ever think that if you don't have faith or don't want to serve God, you are going to hell.

Why not? That's essentially what you've said time and time again.

I mean, one would ask, what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart. If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.

@Imari summed it up beautifully. That's what I have to lose. As someone who was raised in a religious house, even at an early age I was worried about the lack of critical thinking religion represented. The closed-mindedness of it, how it would immediately reject any ideas that did not align with pre-conceived notions. It seemed the opposite of what elementary-age Slip was being subjected to five days a week (school, and learning). I recognized school was a valuable pursuit, that learning was always better than not learning, and that religion would fight tooth and nail to not learn about the vast world around us.

 

[Touring Mars]

I voted yes. Because something started all this and I don't quite fully buy the big bang theory and evolution, but I also don't fully disregard it either, I just want more scientific proof. But even if I get that, it doesn't discredit religion either.

While I voted yes (barely) I do also think that God doesn't really lift a finger to help us. I believe he let's the natural order of things happen; sometimes good things happen to people, sometimes bad things happen to people, but I don't think God gets involved. It's more like a social experiment or something.


Jerome

I can understand why people are skeptical of the Big Bang theory - and to a lesser extent evolution theory - but I think that the problem in both cases is that both theories describe a process whose origins are unclear, yet the evidence that these processes are real is overwhelming. In both cases, a lack of a full explanation of the starting point doesn't invalidate the theory... indeed, the origin of life is a separate (albeit related) field of study to evolution... the existence of evolution merely points us in the right direction when it comes to knowing where to start looking for evidence of the origins of life itself. Similarly, the Big Bang theory doesn't go as far as to explain precisely how Big Bangs happen, only that observational evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that it did happen.

 

[Denur]

I don't quite fully buy the big bang theory and evolution

Both have been proven beyond any doubt. Not accepting the prove is your choice. If that choice is based on ignorance, than that is just a pity.

what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart

I was going to answer this, but have been tree'd multiple times.

 

[Danoff]

No faith = a persons choice. Unforgiven sins = hell
Don't ever think that if you don't have faith or don't want to serve God, you are going to hell.

Oh don't worry, I don't. It's just, you know, the bible does say that...

 

[GBO Possum]

Tell me about it. I've seen it with evolution and bang theories.
No, I worship the One true Living God, not created and not made up. The One that judges the heart, and the One that condemns wickedness, deceit and sin.
Speak for yourself. I've been there, and it's a dead end road.

Are you saying that "evolution and bang theories" are examples of "making 🤬 up"?

Then your "god" will be annoyed, since you have been deceived. There is overwhelming evidence to support "evolution and bang theories".

On the other hand, there is zero evidence to support any gods. That's what I mean by "making 🤬 up".

Example.

Way back, people realized the importance of the Sun, but couldn't explain it. Why does it "burn" "forever"? How come it appears every day? We didn't know, so we made 🤬 up, inventing a god. Later on, we figured out that the Sun is not a god, it's a star, so we stopped worshiping it.

You don't still worship the Sun do you, @DCP ?

That's what evidence does. It stops us from continuing to believe 🤬 and gets us to actual understanding.

 

[ECGadget]

I appreciate your post ECG. I'm not judging his heart by saying that. I'm merely stating that one doesn't want to understand or accept the Word, and Gods plan for us sinners, and are always ready to defend whatever they see coming from the followers of Christ. This is why I say he has a rejecting heart.
I mean, one would ask, what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart. If you have nothing to lose, then why still outright reject it.
Off course I can only hope it's a temporary rejection. You right, only God knows the choice a person has already made

I understand more clearly where you are coming from with regards to that. However you have to see that people believe differently, they have faith (be it "blind" or "scientific" or "pure" or whatever adjective you wish to place in front of that word) in different things. You believe in Christ being the son of God. Fair enough, I respect you for that and I respect your belief in that. I believe in Christ being the Prophet of God. I trust you respect my belief in that and the reasonings behind it. But with religion there are laws, rules etc of which many people either do not understand fully, do not understand at all, or understand enough to say "religion is not for me, I do not wish to be a part of it". And people of faith in God have to respect that last one, and they most likely belong to one of the first two categories. What the latter category have to lose is who they currently are. In a time like this religion is not the same as it used to be. There are religions who are closing up to all forms of science, and this could easily be a possible reason why religion does not sit well with people. After all, if a 2000 year old book says that the world shall end say tomorrow, and it does not, what does that say about the religion? Is it wrong? Is it misinterpreted? Religion in itself is a science, understanding where it comes from (and I do not mean coming from God, I mean the way it was built together, the reasoning behind laws or rules or whatever there is). And to really know a religion inside out you need to go right the way back to the start, as far as possible. The Bible says a number of things that contradict with science. Have you ever questioned why that is? It is very possible that things have been misinterpreted over the years, since the bible has been changed over and over and over. You could find that the earliest Bible may have nothing in common with the one today. And then you have to question yourself as to why things have changed so much in religion. Take Islam for an example: just over 1400 years ago Islam was started as a way of life, a final message from God etc etc. It confirmed a number of things that were said before, as well as established different foundations. Islam did not shun science, nor did it shun the pursuit of humans to learn. In fact it encouraged it to such a degree that some of the most notable universities (I use that term a little loosely) were considered core places in Islam. Places where people would debate physics, and chemistry and astronomy. Medicine, language, economics etc. Fast forward today and it seems that Islam has lost that, instead favouring a more close minded approach to any aspect of science. I know that there are a number of scholars who are trying to change this again, and I commend them for it. In a sense, Islam may originally have taken five steps forward, but it has now taken seven steps back and you see it. The one thing Islam can still hold is that the Quraan and Hadith have not been changed in any which way over the years and that lack of change is documented. But peoples ideas about it most certainly have. And that make some more in touch with Islam (and widely putting that out as religion as a whole) and others less in touch. Maybe if religion actually took the steps forward to be where they need to be again, they may have a more accepted place in this century. I am not saying they are wrong about Adam and Eve etc, that is the core of faith. But then perhaps scientists of religion could work on say disproving the theory of evolution (and I don't mean by saying "Then why are there still monkeys?". That way, instead of us just throwing random insults at each other or judging each other, we could actually have fully educated discussions. And of course, if religion is right (being unbiased here) then something like evolution will eventually be disproved because that would be the truth. This is what we should be doing. We have common goals here. We want to know everything. Humans can work together to do this, whilst respecting each others beliefs. Heck, I do not buy into evolution at all, but I am still curious about the research they do. But I do believe in the big bang and I believe that God caused it. Why? No idea. How? I may never know. But I support those who want to find out, because it is interesting and if you have that much faith in a religion you should know that whatever happens the final outcome will end up proving the existance of God. Studying science rarely involves making things up. It usually involvs making a judgement on what we know. And as we all know, until we have a complete picture we never ever can be certain of things being true. The theory of evolution is not made up, it is well studied. Is it right? My faith tells me no, and I trust that. BUT in all the research done I feel we have learnt so much more of ourselves as a species and therefore it has been (in my humble opinion) worth it. And I also have respect for those who believe it is correct, and see them no differently to any other human, which is what it should be.

Also, I mean zero disrespect to anyone who does not believe in God and similarly to anyone who does and feels I am a Looney Tune and I apologise if I have.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Both have been proven beyond any doubt. Not accepting the prove is your choice. If that choice is based on ignorance, than that is just a pity.

No ignorance, believe me. I fully respect both theories and because both make a TON of sense, is why I barely chose Yes in the poll. The part that I keep getting caught on mentally is, who/what/how did the Big Bang start. Was it God, coincidence? I find it hard to believe something didn't have a part in its inception.

Who's to say evolution wasn't part of God's plan the whole time? It's questions like these that are hard to find answers for and why I can't say 100% God is real, nor 100% God doesn't exist.

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang Theory not the Big Bang Fact


Jerome

 

[zzz_pt]

@ECGadget

" I trust you respect my belief in that and the reasonings behind it. But with religion there are laws, rules etc of which many people either do not understand fully, do not understand at all, or understand enough to say "religion is not for me, I do not wish to be a part of it". And people of faith in God have to respect that last one, and they most likely belong to one of the first two categories."


You're basically saying people who have faith have access to some knowledge that other people (unbelievers) don't - the "rules" and how they work. On the other hand, you say Evolution is not true because your faith "tells" you so. The double standards are off the scale.


The difference between people who believe and people who question beliefs is the following:

The believer loves answers more than questions.

It happens that questions are the things that drive us (humanity) forward.


ps: I was a baptist evangelical christian a few years ago as you would see in my first posts in this and other threads.

 

[ECGadget]

@ECGadget

" I trust you respect my belief in that and the reasonings behind it. But with religion there are laws, rules etc of which many people either do not understand fully, do not understand at all, or understand enough to say "religion is not for me, I do not wish to be a part of it". And people of faith in God have to respect that last one, and they most likely belong to one of the first two categories."


You're basically saying people who have faith have access to some knowledge that other people (unbelievers) don't - the "rules" and how they work. On the other hand, you say Evolution is not true because your faith "tells" you so. The double standards are off the scale.


The difference between people who believe and people who question beliefs is the following:

The believer loves answers more than questions.

It happens that questions are the things that drive us (humanity) forward.

No, I think you've misunderstood. I am saying that people do not understand a faith, either partly or fully. Not what the faith says, but the faith itself. No extra knowledge at all. By rules I did not mean "rules of the universe" or whatever. I meant rules like... "attend Church on a Sunday" or something. But I can see how it could be seen that way, sorry!

 

[MatskiMonk]

and I don't quite fully buy the big bang theory

Both have been proven beyond any doubt.

The Big Bang theory has not "been proven beyond any doubt", this extract from here describes the situation as I understand it...

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. This tiny fireball then exploded and gave rise to the early universe.

The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of something will converge or diverge over time. Going backward in time, according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.

But that's not quite true. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached. But scientists extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in Montreal, who was not involved in the study.

"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.

There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

 

[Imari]

Take Islam for an example: just over 1400 years ago Islam was started as a way of life, a final message from God etc etc. It confirmed a number of things that were said before, as well as established different foundations. Islam did not shun science, nor did it shun the pursuit of humans to learn. In fact it encouraged it to such a degree that some of the most notable universities (I use that term a little loosely) were considered core places in Islam. Places where people would debate physics, and chemistry and astronomy. Medicine, language, economics etc.

It should be noted that both Islam and Christianity have gone through periods where they have been extremely tolerant and even encouraging of the science of the time.

Islam's period was particularly important, as without it probably the vast majority of the knowledge of the Greeks would have been lost. Islam gathered as much scientific information as possible, categorised and distributed it, understood it, and then started extending it. It tends to go ignored in the west, but a lot of great and very important discoveries in science and mathematics were made by Islamic scholars. In fact, a lot of the scientific method is derived from the techniques used by those early Islamic scholars.

If people are interested, it's a great period of history to read about. If they don't know much about Islam beyond terrorists, it will give them a new perspective on what a vibrant and inclusive religion it can be.

Both have been proven beyond any doubt. Not accepting the prove is your choice. If that choice is based on ignorance, than that is just a pity.

That's not entirely true. Both still have a lot of areas that need further explanation, the Big Bang in particular.

It's true that any successor to these theories will likely share a lot in common with them, and will probably be known by the same names, there's a lot of room for things to change.

And in the case of the Big Bang, there's a lot of room for it to just be flat out wrong in some places. We only have observational data so far back, and what happened before that is extrapolation and speculation. It's certainly a bang once the observational data starts, but whether that bang goes all the way back to the beginning still nobody knows.

 

[Denur]

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang Theory not the Big Bang Fact

Please look up the difference between a scientific theory and the every day use of the word theory. This difference has been addressed so many time already in this and its brother thread.

It's certainly a bang once the observational data starts, but whether that bang goes all the way back to the beginning still nobody knows.

Agreed, but the discovery of the afterglow was the smoking gun. What happened in the very first fraction of a second, no idea.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang Theory not the Big Bang Fact

And no matter how much evidence exists, it will always remain a theory because science never promotes theory to fact. Theory is the highest achievable honor in science. Facts are the evidence used to promote hypothesis to theory.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Please look up the difference between a scientific theory and the every day use of the word theory. This difference has been addressed so many time already in this and its brother thread.

Welp, I looked up the definition of "Theory" as used in science... I didn't see any use of the phrase "proven beyond any doubt". So which is the Big Bang?

 

[Touring Mars]

Atomic theory doesn't imply that the existence of atoms is in doubt...

Theories are not just explanations of how things work, but their validity can also be tested by the accuracy of the predictions they produce... for example, evolution theory as it was in Darwin's day didn't have the benefit of molecular genetics to inform it, yet genetic evidence today serves as a stunning validation for the common descent hypothesis that was predicted by evolution theory. In the case of the Big Bang theory, the prediction of the existence and precise nature of the cosmic microwave background serves as a strong validation for the accuracy of the theory, and has since been observed and measured in great detail. The observations/measurements are evidence, but the fact that they were predicted to exist before such measurements were even possible demonstrates the explanatory power of the theory.

 

[I Am Yellow]

Welp, I looked up the definition of "Theory" as used in science... I didn't see any use of the phrase "proven beyond any doubt". So which is the Big Bang?

Gravity is also a theory. For Karl Popper, there is no true scientific theory that can't be proven false - not that they will, but that they hold such possibility. Going to the root of the argument, there is no true theory ever in science, merely ones that haven't been refuted. In practical terms, there are many scientific theories already taken as true, e.g. gravity, thermal expansion and so on, but they are all capable to be constantly tested. The same goes with Big Bang, although to a lesser degree of certainty. We have a good deal of evidence to believe it's true - someday perhaps a different and more accurate hypothesis may arise, or corrections may be done to the Big Bang theory itself - and further predictions made based on such theory have been accurate enough.

Thus, a theory becomes what would be roughly the scientific equivalent of a fact, without the sense of absolute truth held about a 'fact' for common sense.

 

[Denur]

Welp, I looked up the definition of "Theory" as used in science... I didn't see any use of the phrase "proven beyond any doubt". So which is the Big Bang?

There is always room for refinement.

 

[Exorcet]

I mean, one would ask, what do you have to lose to accept Christ into you heart.

Everything.

The risks in ignoring reality are huge. If I accept one thing on faith, why stop there? If I believed that prayer could cure me, why take medicine? If this life is temporary and not worth much, why try to stick around?

You ignore science as part of your belief and as a result you are truly contributing to this world being a worse place for everyone. Anyone that accepts your beliefs is inclined to remain ignorant on health (ignore genetics and reproduction, virus and bacterial disease transmissions), the environment (age of the Earth, factors in climate, weather, etc), morality, and more.

If there is one upside from the lies of religion, it might be comfort in telling someone that they, or someone they love, can survive death. However that comes at the cost of having to tell the lie more and more. Ignore medical science and more people die. You can keep saying they all go to heaven, but that won't make it true.

 

[huskeR32]

The part that I keep getting caught on mentally is, who/what/how did the Big Bang start. Was it God, coincidence? I find it hard to believe something didn't have a part in its inception.

But what created God then? It's turtles all the way down. etc. etc.

Who's to say evolution wasn't part of God's plan the whole time?

Nobody. But whoever says it was had better have some convincing evidence to share when making such a claim.

It's questions like these that are hard to find answers for and why I can't say 100% God is real, nor 100% God doesn't exist.

It's questions like these that are hard to find answers for and why I can't say 100% the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, nor 100% the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

It's questions like these that are hard to find answers for and why I can't say 100% Shiva is real, nor 100% Shiva doesn't exist.

It's questions like these that are hard to find answers for and why I can't say 100% Cthulhu is real, nor 100% Cthulhu doesn't exist.

The problem with making your god a god of the gaps is that any deity can fill the gaps.

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang Theory not the Big Bang Fact

 

[GBO Possum]

Oh, and it's called the Big Bang Theory not the Big Bang Fact