- 3,503
- London, ON
- A_Mindful_Place
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,481 comments
- 1,107,157 views
- 7,582
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Living things are made of non living matter and physics dictates everything. If matter is able to interact with other matter, then there is a chance that an interaction will happen. If there is enough matter in total the chance that matter interacts with other matter somewhere becomes essentially 100%. The universe is big, so that seems to apply to us.
Which interactions become common will depend on many factors, but as a general rule systems tend to end up in the lowest energy state possible. It's the most stable configuration. So matter will interact and tend to give off energy in the process. This energy that is released can be captured by other matter which is then able to interact with yet more matter, etc.
Some of these interactions may be self replicating. Carbon likes to bond to itself and can form very long chains of atoms, so it's not unreasonable to expect chains of carbon to create more chains of carbon. As these chains keep being produced, the ones that are less likely to be broken by the environment or absorbed by other chains will be the ones that last the longest and over time they may become more and more complex as they interact with each other. This provides a basis for replication and natural selection purely from a physics standpoint. Natural Selection itself applies to living things, but only because humans have defined it that way. It is really just another result of matter following the laws of thermodynamics.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,836
- Mile High City
I can recommend "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins for this. The answer you're looking for is stability. You look around and see things which tend to be stable, because stable things exist in more times than unstable things. Natural selection is a stable process because it is a self-replicating and self-reinforcing process. Since it is stable, you see it because it exists in a lot of times, billions of years on Earth. You look around and see planets because they are stable and exist for many years. You see stars because they are stable and exist for many years. Unstable processes are less commonly observable because they don't exist across a lot of time.
- 13,840
- Adelaide
- Neomone
As @Exorcet says, it comes back to thermodynamics. The basic rules of thermodynamics, chemistry and physics that seem to be fundamental to the universe result in these things being favoured in certain situations.
One could ask why thermodynamics, chemistry and physics are the way they are, but there aren't really answers to that at the moment. I mean, there are a bit, but it's mostly the same problem that at some level we go beyond what we currently understand. These are things that we've observed about how the universe works, and they appear to work that way everywhere. Would another universe work that way? Would it even be possible for a universe that could support beings like us to work another way? Maybe one day we could answer these questions, or maybe humanity will never know.
These questions are not served by "well therefore God" however. That's not an answer, it's an avoidance of the discomfort of realising that if you ask why for long enough at some level you always, always get to the point where the answer is "I don't know". There is no absolute knowledge, only things we think we've mostly figured out, things we know we haven't, and things we don't even know that we should be trying to figure out yet.
Why bother to figure things out at all then? Because even incomplete knowledge can make our lives better, can be enjoyable and satisfying. Just because you're not the fastest driver ever doesn't mean you can't have fun driving or find it useful.
- 3,503
- London, ON
- A_Mindful_Place
@Danoff thank you for the suggestion! Very kind of you. It'll give me another avenue to venture down.
@Imari Well said! Being uncomfortable does bring about the process of change, so it's good to wrestle with topics like this and not fall back onto the easy defaults of 'God', at least not in the contemporary usage of the construct 'God'. Any answer that is too sure of itself is something weary of.
@Imari Well said! Being uncomfortable does bring about the process of change, so it's good to wrestle with topics like this and not fall back onto the easy defaults of 'God', at least not in the contemporary usage of the construct 'God'. Any answer that is too sure of itself is something weary of.
feral and bad
Premium
- 172
- United States
- double_rating7
I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put forth in trying to help me. I have not used an anti-psychotic in over 20 years. Everyone that has expressed an opinion about my behavior and well being are grateful that I stopped and that I am on my current trajectory. I am much happier talking to God, reading His word, and on a few occasions, having him talk to me. I am aware that there are some people who need anti-psychotics, I just don't believe that I am one of them.
Thanks again for your concern and effort.
- 1,998
- WNC
- TRLWNC
It is interesting when logic is the only thing used to attempt to explain something that has no acceptable logic in this life.
God is on another, and more perfect, plane of existence.
We don't understand it because we are imperfect. How could we possible explain something that is perfect when we can't even talk perfectly, much less understand perfectly?
As far as saying that there is a conclusion before you pray, that is like saying you have arrived at the Portofino on a Cannonball run when you are only just leaving New York.
You can deny God. However, there will be a time when you will not be capable of doing so any more.
We shall see.
God is on another, and more perfect, plane of existence.
We don't understand it because we are imperfect. How could we possible explain something that is perfect when we can't even talk perfectly, much less understand perfectly?
As far as saying that there is a conclusion before you pray, that is like saying you have arrived at the Portofino on a Cannonball run when you are only just leaving New York.
You can deny God. However, there will be a time when you will not be capable of doing so any more.
We shall see.
Doesn't mean it came from my side.
- 17,048
- United Kingdom
Cultists.
- 29,580
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Which god?
Danoff
Premium
- 33,836
- Mile High City
Hearing voices definitely has acceptable logic. I suppose you mean some sort of supreme being has no acceptable logic. It is interesting that so much of our existence conforms so perfectly to logic, and we're able to utilize this to great effect, creating cars and computers and predicting supernova and so on. But for some reason you think that we should abandon this when discussing death or visions.
Death and visions are both very easily discussed with logic as well. This tool/feature of reality doesn't fall apart, you just like to abandon it in this particular area for some reason.
Does your children's biological mother also hear voices?Doesn't mean it came from my side.
Last edited:
- 35,199
- NoDak
- Cy-Fi
You can believe in a god. However, there will be a time when you will not be capable of doing so any more.
- 7,582
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Logic is what we use to understand the world around us. I touched on this a couple of posts ago. If a god created us and granted us the ability to use logic, why turn around and avoid logic when interacting with us?
Newtonian gravity is an imperfect model of gravity, but was good enough to advance technology for hundreds of years and is still useful today. You're not really saying anything here. We're not perfect but that doesn't mean we can't understand something.
Besides that, if we are unable to understand something and the world is the creation of an all powerful god, then it's that god's fault that we can't understand. It was the choice of the god to make us that way.
You're so sure that people are denying god, but why would they? If there was a self evident all powerful deity, why would you even deny it? What do you gain? Nothing in my eyes. An answer I often hear is that people are too proud to submit, which is ridiculous.
Your certainty in your preferred god is also shared by every other believer, including those who choose different gods to follow. Even if you're convinced that there is a god and it's the one you choose to follow, I think there has to be an admission that there are alternatives that are exactly as convincing. People believe in other gods with just as much conviction as you believe in yours:
I'd think it would be pretty easy for a real deity to stand out from ones that don't exist, but no god has yet.
- 86,509
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Would you believe that it's the one described in the version of the book, translated from a translation of a version of the book created by selectively assembling just the exact right, translated versions of a number of different scripts (while twice as many were discarded) written by humans who weren't eyewitnesses to the events described therein, that they happened to grow up reading?
I mean, what are the chances even?
- 13,840
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Which is all well and good, until you go trying to make statements like:
That's a concrete statement. If you can't explain the logic of it, then you should recognise that this is going to be something that is subjective to you personally and just keep it to yourself.
Why would you not be able to? If something is perfect, should it not be perfectly easy to explain and understand as well? I mean, I understand the idea of a perfect circle. It's not really that hard.
Cool. All this says to me is that I'm doing the right thing and I should continue to think what makes sense to me based on the evidence available.
- 2,509
- somewhere near Trial Mountain
- oldbusanubis
I recently watched a movie (or was it a TV show?) I forget what it was but one of the actors said it is better to believe in God because if you're wrong you've nothing to lose, and if you're right you've everything to gain.
A win-win situation indeed Mr. Actor.
A win-win situation indeed Mr. Actor.
Last edited:
- 7,582
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
While that may sound reasonable at first, there are a lot of problems with that line of thought. It's a biased question from the beginning because it doesn't consider all options. Your choices are framed as believe in God (assuming it's the Christian god here) or don't, but why is God the only choice? What if there is a god that created the world, hid, and is now testing humanity, but this god will only accept not believers? This god made the world seem as if it was not created and came about naturally and only wants followers that realize that and don't reject evidence. In that case belief in the Christian god would doom you forever.
That's not the only problem. It assumes that belief in god will not have any negative effects, but religious wars and unfounded beliefs say otherwise. There are quite a few things you can lose out on by believing; a tithe to churches, deciding to become a priest instead of a doctor, choosing to give up on medicine because you want to go to heaven, etc.
The better way to think about it is in terms of truth. Don't assume the answer (ie don't automatically give legitimacy to a specific outcome, in this case God, above other). Ask yourself what you risk by ignoring the truth and consider all possibilities. It makes finding an answer a lot more involved, and you'll probably want to discuss it with other people to find additional perspectives, but if you put in the effort you'll be better off.
- 2,509
- somewhere near Trial Mountain
- oldbusanubis
Well in my personal belief there are many aspects to 'god', I won't deny science or medicine because doing so would actually go against my belief. I'm not much a Christian, though I can understand why it would be easy to assume that. Do I believe in a god? sure. But I can't be certain if it it's the same god that Christians believe in.
I won't deny the possibility of the Christian god, but it isn't exactly one which I seek out.
The thing about religious wars is that it's all human-made. Most religious wars are never actually about god. And this god we're referring to in this thread has created far more than just Earth and humanity, they've created an entire universe, so to expect this god to be biased and intervene in all human wars is just stupidity whether you believe in god or not.
I won't deny the possibility of the Christian god, but it isn't exactly one which I seek out.
The thing about religious wars is that it's all human-made. Most religious wars are never actually about god. And this god we're referring to in this thread has created far more than just Earth and humanity, they've created an entire universe, so to expect this god to be biased and intervene in all human wars is just stupidity whether you believe in god or not.
- 7,582
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
It was actually the uppercase G that made me think you were referring to a specific god, though it doesn't change much if you aren't. I guess at least a generic god is more plausible, but if it is still unfalsifiable, it's hard to fit such a being into the world meaningfully.
Religious wars being human made is the point. If there isn't a god that would have to be the case, and it would be false beliefs that contributed to conflict.
As for god paying attention to humans, it's not about bias so much as ability. If a being is truly omnipotent and omniscient, nothing can exist that opposing this being's will. If suffering exists, that being must be condoning it explicitly. If god is not all powerful then what you say may apply, and god might not be able or willing to solve humanity's problems.
- 2,509
- somewhere near Trial Mountain
- oldbusanubis
I don't think it's unfalsifiable, but rather I've yet to seen anything to the contrary. My 'god' is, as you say, generic, and is more about the aspects of nature rather some supernatural being. this makes my personal belief able to adapt with modern science and societal principle rather than being stuck in archaic doctrine.
I understand that the argument and therein thread was never about that, but to quote the OP question of 'Do you believe in God?" Yes I do, perhaps just not your god.
You might consider me ignorant but, I've yet you see anything go against my God, to whom are an aspect of our very nature.
Last edited:
Ghost Lap
(Banned)
- 314
- United Kingdom
- 13,840
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's generally referred to as Pascal's Wager, and it's a massively flawed piece of "logic". There's an Atheist's Wager that pulls a similar trick to come to the conclusion that the best choice is to live a good life regardless of religious beliefs.
Logic isn't a tool that works when you're talking about entities that may or may not exist and that have almost wholly undefined properties. There simply isn't enough data to make sensible logical inferences without starting with huge amounts of assumptions, which means you can make the outcome whatever you want just by choosing those assumptions a certain way.
feral and bad
Premium
- 172
- United States
- double_rating7
At the risk of muddying the waters, here is an question that I ask.
What do you think would happen if you gave a person a complete library documenting how things actually work and why they are, written in the books' native languages (because translations and non-native languages nearly always introduce inaccuracies), and told them that "here are all the answers about everything".
My guess is that they would be overwhelmed and uncertain even where to begin. I imagine a child trying to read a doctoral thesis.
It is my belief that this is why time and this universe were constructed. It is my belief that it should be easier to learn in a linear, ordered fashion, hopefully building on the accrued knowledge of the human race.
It is my belief that there are things happening that we have no way of knowing about, much less understanding. In the bibllical book of Job, chapters 38 and 39, an attempt is made to explain this.
Hopefully this helps someone and doesn't make understanding even more difficult.
- 13,840
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Sure, but when you're talking about a created universe, you're also talking about having created humans in such a way that they don't have the ability to just absorb information. They could have been created with that ability, or created just knowing everything already.
It's a cute idea, but it doesn't actually explain anything when you take the bigger picture into account. It's just circular logic - humans have to learn over time therefore time was created the way it is so that humans can learn over time and humans were created that way because time is linear because GOTO 10. The whole thing is a created object in this hypothetical situation, so it makes no sense to say that one part was created because of the innate properties of another.
- 2,509
- somewhere near Trial Mountain
- oldbusanubis
Logic isn't something that can be easily applied to religion in general I'd agree. Which really does beg the question, if you knowingly can't apply logic to religion then why do some attempt to do that, fail, and then criticize those whom may still believe?
Seems like another one of those rabbit holes that people get themselves into.
Last edited:
- 1,241
- Australia
To some people the existence of god is tied to their hope. "If there's no god, how can there be hope?" At least that's what some people think. Those people who prefer to live with this version of hope might gravitate to believing in a God or God(s). Which would serve it's purpose of restoring hope for them.
People who think like that would also think "if God does not exist, then everything's just chaos, we're all just somewhat evolved chimpanzee cousins and I should stop giving a crap about anyone then and descend into madness. I'd prefer not to believe in such a miserable scenario of a life without God" Which is a point, but how would this line of thinking be problematic or good to the progress of modern civilization?
Last edited:
Similar threads
