Do you believe in God?

[MonsterMunch]

Why is it an error to assume that there was a beginning? When you say that Science doesn't require a beginning, I think you're confusing the fact that Science cannot predict what happened before the Big Bang with the idea that Science doesn't require causality. Science requires causality. Which means that for everything that does exist, there is a causal chain leading up to its existence.

I think many (most?) physicists now think that time itself also started with the big bang so it's not possible for there to be anything before it.

 

[blaaah]

Why is it an error to assume that there was a beginning? When you say that Science doesn't require a beginning, I think you're confusing the fact that Science cannot predict what happened before the Big Bang with the idea that Science doesn't require causality. Science requires causality. Which means that for everything that does exist, there is a causal chain leading up to its existence.

No i'm not confused.
Science doesnt require the existence of science to have a causality.
Once science exists then it can have causality.
The entire existence that we know could be just one massive Boltzmann Brain type creation.
A spontaneous existence of matter and the universe and all its physical laws.
That might have been the start of that event but there might not have been a beginning to the process which allowed the Boltzmann Brain to appear.
The whole concept of something having an actual beginning does not make a sense to me, either it's on an infinite line both ends or it's a loop.
Can you describe anything that has a real beginning? I think it's hard as there is always something that can be imagined to go before or after.

 

[Tic Tach]

I do not like, however, atheists who do not respect people's beliefs, and treat them as inferior individuals, making satire of their beliefs and using it as some sort of an inside joke.

This is a tempting idea. However, do all "beliefs" deserve respect?


Kindly watch these two vids:


http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/1/P4dSiHqpULk




http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/u/63/WPAC_cGVnUg

 

[Tic Tach]

There is so much that science could never even come close to explaining and that's when I begin to think outside the realm of conventional knowledge.

Absolute rubbish. Everything - yes everything we "know" we know thanks to the hard work of science. If there are some things that have yet to be explained, you do not get to declare that they cannot be explained, and then claim that any supernatural guess has anything to say other than being "fun" to believe.

 

[Joey D]

Absolute rubbish. Everything - yes everything we "know" we know thanks to the hard work of science. If there are some things that have yet to be explained, you do not get to declare that they cannot be explained, and then claim that any supernatural guess has anything to say other than being "fun" to believe.

Errr no it's not absolute rubbish actually. There are things science can't explain, sure they can take a crack at it but there is no way for science to prove it. For instance, what caused the Big Bang? I'm not doubting it happened and I'm not saying a supernatural being created the universe in seven days, but what I am asking is why did it happen and what caused it? Science can't explain it and any theory that is thrown out there is anyone's best guess on what we currently know. It's something that will probably never be answered.

I do agree many things that religion says was by the hand of "god" isn't right as there is evidence to prove otherwise. I'm talking about the stuff we don't know though.

And your picture you posted doesn't fit the way I believe at all so you might want to reset and try again.

 

[Dotini]

Everything - yes everything we "know" we know thanks to the hard work of science.

TicTach, do you know who your mother is because of science? Do you know that your parents love you because of science? Do you know that water is wet or that garbage stinks because of science?

Your aggressive attempts to proselytize others to your pseudo-religion of scientism/atheism might lead one to wonder whether you are a recovering Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Tic Tach]

Errr no it's not absolute rubbish actually. There are things science can't explain.

Again, absolute rubbish. There is nothing that science "cannot" explain, there are only things that it has not yet explained. Science is open to ALL observable phenomena, and you have to admit that it it has a pretty good track record so far.

....sure they can take a crack at it but there is no way for science to prove it.

Again, you saying that there is "no way" is tantamount to those who said that getting to the moon is impossible.

For instance, what caused the Big Bang?

Your "for instance" is no instance at all. There are numerous astrophysisists who are hard at work trying to figure this out. They may find out. What then? How small of a corner does a deity need to be painted into?

Indeed the questions going way way way way way back about the origins of life, and the universe, are difficult; but the beauty of science is that they work on it until a coherent theory stands on it's own legs by the brutal, critical assault of scientific observation and testing. "God did it" explains nothing.

Think of Hodgkin and Huxley working out of how the nerve impulse works - a very difficult problem involving very tough mathematics. Suppose that they found it too difficult; would we have respected them if they'd said something like, "I can't work out how this nerve impulse works, Hodgkin. Can you?", "No Huxley, I can't. Let's just give up and say a God did it."?

I'm not doubting it happened and I'm not saying a supernatural being created the universe in seven days, but what I am asking is why did it happen and what caused it?

What your question(s) display is the character trait of the primitive, pattern-seeking human brain which (for reasons of survivial and superstition) always saught agency and purpose in things it didn't understand. This pattern-seeking and meaning-seeking characteristic remains with us today.

The "why" question may be completely erroneous, and stems from our own ideas of our ego-based importance in the cosmos.

If anyone is mystified at how the universe can exist without a creator, are you not also equally mystified how a creator can exist without a creator?

Science can't explain it and any theory that is thrown out there is anyone's best guess on what we currently know.

You've just displayed your utter ignorance on what a "theory" is.

It's something that will probably never be answered.

Except that those who've said this before were wrong.

 

[Tic Tach]

TicTach, do you know who your mother is because of science? Do you know that your parents love you because of science? Do you know that water is wet or that garbage stinks because of science?

In a way, yes. Reason and evidence.

 

[Joey D]

Stop double posting, there is a multi-quote button for a reason.

And I believe what I believe, I've done my research and sole searching myself and it's what I've concluded. To me there are things science cannot answer and probably never will be able to answer, this is why I think there may be a higher power out there. I'm not saying there is a "god", I'm saying there is probably a force we are unaware of.

I think you're demonstrating to me why I began doing my own soul searching regarding the belief in a supernatural force. Fanatical atheists are just as bad as fanatical religious groups and I could see myself going down that path of fanatical atheism. I sat down, examined both sides of the fence and realised both sides had a valid point on a lot of things and settled somewhere in between. I am a firm agnostic with the leaning there probably is a force in the universe but I don't know, nor can I say for sure.

With regards to anything in the supernatural realm I feel it's best to take the path of being agnostic, atheist can't prove to me that there isn't a supernatural force just as much as a theist can't prove to me there is one.

 

[Tic Tach]

Gah!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4



.

 

[Joey D]

No, I'm pretty sure I'm agnostic.

From Websters:

ag·nos·tic - n.
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

That fits my opinion and some YouTube video isn't exactly enough evidence to change the definition of a word, especially a YouTube video by a self-proclaimed atheist.

 

[Scaff]

Gah!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEJtQJ5tz4



.

Please be more careful with the manner in which you speak to other members.

Feel free to discuss and debate view points, but do not attack other members, and a few of your posts have come very close to that.

Be aware that will not be tolerated here at GT Planet.

'Gah!' and a youtube link is not a reasoned argument, its borderline spam at best and certainly a lazy option. Explain your view and why you hold it.



Scaff

 

[Tic Tach]

That fits my opinion and some YouTube video isn't exactly enough evidence to change the definition of a word

Suddenly you're interested in evidence? Cool. Me too.

Please be more careful with the manner in which you speak to other members.

Feel free to discuss and debate view points, but do not attack other members, and a few of your posts have come very close to that.

Be aware that will not be tolerated here at GT Planet.

'Gah!' and a youtube link is not a reasoned argument, its borderline spam at best and certainly a lazy option. Explain your view and why you hold it.



Scaff

Sure thing. But please understand that when baseless assertions are made by someone, dismantling them is not an attack on the person, rather, the assertion itself.

My brief reply was due to time limitations, not laziness; and the fact that the YouTube video explains it clearly and efficiently.

I will consider your points though. Thanks.

 

[Joey D]

Suddenly you're interested in evidence? Cool. Me too.

I'm not un-interested in evidence, I've never said anything contrary to that. There is no evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being so any discussion that comes about concern that supernatural force is all in the realm of "I don't know". We can only make best guests, which is what I'm doing and really anyone who makes any claims about a supernatural being is doing the exact same thing.

 

[Scaff]

Sure thing. But please understand that when baseless assertions are made by someone, dismantling them is not an attack on the person, rather, the assertion itself.

This.....

Perhaps instead of the impoverished, superstitious knee-jerk answer of "god-did-it", you might find some things to chew on in one of the following books:

falls foul of this part of the AUP...

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

...an AUP you agreed to follow when you joined.

Please take more care when posting on what is always going to be an inflammatory subject.

My brief reply was due to time limitations, not laziness; and the fact that the YouTube video explains it clearly and efficiently

Then I suggest you hold fire until you are able to formulate a more detailed reply, because a youtube link and a single word could be taken in the wrong light by many.

I will consider your points though. Thanks.

Thank you, and in future please do not double post, its why we have an edit button.


Thanks

Scaff

 

[Tic Tach]

Thank you, and in future please do not double post, its why we have an edit button.

I'm unclear on this point. If I make a separate reply to a different person, that is considered a double post? If it is, why is it frowned upon? I've spent considerable time on various forums and have not come across this issue.

 

[Scaff]

I'm unclear on this point. If I make a separate reply to a different person, that is considered a double post? If it is, why is it frowned upon? I've spent considerable time on various forums and have not come across this issue.

It is considered a double post and given the ease of editing and the existence of a multi-quote tool here at GT Planet its not difficult to avoid.

Its frowned upon because double posting (if abused) can be used to 'bump' threads and makes them look a mess.

We are well aware that GT Planet operates in a manner that doesn't match a lot of the net, particularly in these kinds of areas (and others such as the need for good basic grammar and a ban on text speak are other good examples). We have found that maintaining these kinds of standards leads to a better standard of member and a better level of discussion.

Hope that makes sense.


Scaff

 

[Duke]

I'm unclear on this point. If I make a separate reply to a different person, that is considered a double post? If it is, why is it frowned upon? I've spent considerable time on various forums and have not come across this issue.

If you wish to reply to more than one person, click on the little double-balloon icon on all the posts you want to quote except the last one. A little + will appear. Then, when you click the quote button on the last post you want, it will quote all of the + marked posts above.

 

[Joel]

I think the misunderstanding here is that Atheism means different things to different people. I call myself an atheist, but I don't say there is no God, or that I can prove there isn't. Rather, I live my life as if there is no God, because there's no tangible evidence that there is a God. It seems some think of atheism as a position stating that there is no God never will be, and never has been.


If that makes sense..

 

[Joey D]

I think the misunderstanding here is that Atheism means different things to different people. I call myself an atheist, but I don't say there is no God, or that I can prove there isn't. Rather, I live my life as if there is no God, because there's no tangible evidence that there is a God. It seems some think of atheism as a position stating that there is no God never will be, and never has been.


If that makes sense..

The dictionary says that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of a supernatural being(s). I think what you exhibit is agnostic atheism, where you don't think there is a supernatural being but you can't say for sure.

I'm somewhere between an agnostic and an agnostic theist, I think there could be a supernatural force but honestly I have no idea and I don't think we will ever know for sure until we die.

 

[Famine]

The dictionary says that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of a supernatural being(s).

A dictionary says that. Mine (2007 Collins) says "A person who does not believe in God or gods" which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a wholly different interpretation. The Greek would be "atheos" - without god (where "a" means "without" and "theos" means "god").

I'd define someone who does not believe in the existence of a god to be an atheist and someone who believes there to be no gods to be a nontheist.

 

[Joey D]

A dictionary says that. Mine (2007 Collins) says "A person who does not believe in God or gods" which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a wholly different interpretation. The Greek would be "atheos" - without god (where "a" means "without" and "theos" means "god").

I'd define someone who does not believe in the existence of a god to be an atheist and someone who believes there to be no gods to be a nontheist.

Fair enough, I only have one dictionary to go on.

But I think we could probably say for the sake of simplification an atheist doesn't subscribe to the thought of a supernatural entity(ies), whether they don't think there is one or they just flat out deny one. I would say an agnostic is someone who doesn't know and thinks there is a chance any theory could be right and a theist being someone who does subscribe to the existence of a supernatural entity(ies).

Yes it's painting a broad definition but I think that of we are working with the same lingo the discussion will be able to move along.

I think in the end though the point I'd like to make is that atheism and agnosticism are two separate schools of thoughts, just as atheism and theism are.

 

[blaaah]

I don't think we will ever know for sure until we die.

So you already believe in life after death or something?

 

[hyyperactive]

I think people make a mistake when they see atheism as an active act of making the choise not to believe. Atheism means there is no faith. Just like most people here are atheist to the gods and folklore of the small tribe of belzebub in the small town of Somewhere City. Atheists do not actively not believe in the belzebub. Atheists have no faith about anything to belzebub.

That's the way I feel about all religions as an atheist.

I'm not against the idea of god. I can't be absolutely 100% sure there isn't one. But so far everything everywhere suggests there is not one. There is nothing to support the fact that god would exist. The lack of evidence is also another thing that makes me flinch. People seem to take the lack of evidence as that nothing has been proven. On the contrary, the total lack of evidence is proof. Proof of nothingness is proof of non-existence.

Naturally that is somewhat wrong way to look at the question as it is the responsibility of the one who makes the positive claim to provide proof.

Religion is not really about is there a god. It seems to be about believing. Believing in believing. Just like this topic. The question doesn't seem to be about existence of god. Just whether to believe in him or not. To make a choise to or not to.

Personally for me atheism was not about finding out there is no god. It was about finding out that I never believed in it.

Personally though I'm probably not the best example of atheism. I see myself more like an anti-theist. I'm against religions and all the harm, crimes, destruction and suffering they cause directly or indirectly.

 

[Joey D]

So you already believe in life after death or something?

Where did I say that I believed in an afterlife?

I don't know if there is an afterlife, no one does since the only people who could tell you are dead themselves. The only true way to know is to die yourself, if you don't go anywhere then chances are it was all a bunch of hooey. If you do go somewhere then it wasn't. Then there's the chance you could be reincarnated as well.

 

[Owen.C93]

I don't believe in God, but he could be real. (By God I mean more of a creator, not a guy that still exists or cares for us)

I certainly don't believe in the Bible or any other religious text.

 

[Dotini]

Let us hypothesize that all points in space and time are connected.

Let us further say that from this universal nexus of space and time there naturally emerges an organizing intelligence which purposefully guides the development and destiny of the universe. This development and purpose has principally to do with stars, quasars, galaxies and the filaments, particles and energies found in interstellar space, if human observations to date are to be judged credible.

Finally, let us note that biology (and humans) are apparently accidental epiphenomena - mere statistical anomalies - living like a few tiny fleas on a giant dog's back in our intelligent universe which normally busies itself dealing with the large issues of gravity, magnetism and the universe of charged particles (plasma) which constitute 99.999% of everything we can see and detect. Universal Intelligence and humans seldom if ever have any contact, and on the rare occasions it does, seems alien and weird. Universal Intelligence is usually oblivious to us and we to it.

Given such an Intelligent Universe (IU), how are we humans to properly characterize our place and role, and to describe our relationship with Universal Intelligence? In this scenario, atheism, agnosticism and theism are all wide of the mark. I think we humans are still rising from the mud of ignorance, with hopes and fears largely grounded in this mud. I would tentatively describe the situation as pantheism (everything is god), with the proviso that biology and humans are less than god, and quite possibly living on borrowed time.

Remember, this is just a thought experiment, not a claim or assertion of anything.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[blaaah]

Where did I say that I believed in an afterlife?

I don't know if there is an afterlife, no one does since the only people who could tell you are dead themselves. The only true way to know is to die yourself, if you don't go anywhere then chances are it was all a bunch of hooey. If you do go somewhere then it wasn't. Then there's the chance you could be reincarnated as well.

You were suggesting something that happens at death that will provide the solution, it might not. If you die and nothing happened and you cease to exist that doesn't mean there is no afterlife and it doesn't mean that there is no god that makes afterlife possible he just maybe in a bad mood or have forgotten about you or not care about applying the rules to you. In the same way say you die and you did experience an afterlife that doesn't mean it is real it could be a special experiment done by Aliens or millions of other things beyond our technology, it doesn't mean it's to do with spirit or the will of a god. What i'm saying is it proves not much. No definitive answer might be gained from death.

 

[Joey D]

You were suggesting something that happens at death that will provide the solution, it might not. If you die and nothing happened and you cease to exist that doesn't mean there is no afterlife and it doesn't mean that there is no god that makes afterlife possible he just maybe in a bad mood or have forgotten about you or not care about applying the rules to you. In the same way say you die and you did experience an afterlife that doesn't mean it is real it could be a special experiment done by Aliens or millions of other things beyond our technology, it doesn't mean it's to do with spirit or the will of a god. What i'm saying is it proves not much. No definitive answer might be gained from death.

The answer is still only known by dying. Granted I left put a lot of options but we could sit here all day and list a million of them. However, you aren't going to know if any of them are true until you die...and that's assuming something does happen. I mean I guess if nothing happens you would "know" since you would no longer have thought.

If after life is selective you are only going to "know" after you die since you are either going to be picked or you're not. There is obviously no scientific way to prove what happens after we die, and the only way you, yourself are ever going to get an answer is by dying yourself....even if it's not the whole answer.

 

[blaaah]

...obviously no scientific way to prove what happens after we die, and the only way you, yourself are ever going to get an answer is by dying yourself....even if it's not the whole answer.

Only as of December 2010. Science has the ability to discover many things. It could discover the absolute meaning and effect of death without dying by using as yet unknown methods.
You can't absolutely say we will never know something.