Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

The rules of the universe we're looking for are just that, rules. Another fabrication of the human mind to understand our existence.

It's a really, really grey area. Rules are rules because everything, right until you reach a quantum level, adheres to the physical rules of the universe. It's nothing to do with how we observe it, more that we can observe it because that's how things happen.

And the fact that at a quantum level things go completely crazy leaves us under no illusion that there is something else going on, but that just means it's an area of science we're yet to fully understand, rather than the presence of a mystical being.

They are there waiting to be discovered, yes, but there will always be some aspect that we won't come across, because (and this is my favourite bit) we have no reason to think otherwise. Much like a blind person born with the condition has no reason to assume what a purple giraffe looks like, we loveable humans have very little understanding of higher reference planes. We can only speculate what other dimensions are like. Whose to say there isn't a "God" out there that can't interact with our dimension of being and understanding?

Again, there's a big philosophical grey area there. Saying "we have no reason to think otherwise" seems to me to be a little unfair on those who dedicate their lives to finding out more about our existence. Science isn't about discovering our perception of things, it's about investigating what's actually happening.

Turning it into a big philosophical discussion just seems like a bit of a cop-out, because then you may as well dismiss absolutely everything in life as "well, it's just the way we see it" and everything the human race has ever achieved just becomes moot.

That's why I'm quite happy to assume that there is no "meaning of life", and that life is just the result of a sequence of events and nothing more. Once you start worrying about what life actually means, you start forgetting to enjoy life itself.

And if there is an answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, then I'm happy to believe it's forty-two And if that's the case, then we're still searching for the question to the answer

We have no way of proving it, and we have no way of disproving it either.

Which takes us back to square one: God - there's no way of proving he/she exists, and no way of disproving it either. Which doesn't seem right to me because it goes against the inquisitive and explorative nature of the human race. To believe in a higher power is to accept that everything happens because it's his or her will, rather than because occasionally, "s*** happens" (as they say), beyond anyone's control.

I'm sure it's very comforting to know that God is in charge, but as I've said much earlier in this thread, if our species had always chosen the safe and comforting route to everything, we wouldn't be here today as our ancestors would never have sought to improve our lot as a species.

 

[sumbrownkid]

"A force of good"?

This institution killed an awful lot of people...for being "wizards", "witches" or "being posessed by the devil".


They're everything but nice people. Even today they still try to tell people how to live their life and condemn gay and lesbian people or women who are getting an abortion.

^ thank you. Church is nothing but a telemarketing scam. All they want is your support in the form of cold, hard, cash. Have fun wasting your Sunday mornings for something so ridiculous.

I'd rather stay in bed and possibly go to hell when I die.

So the both of you base an entire religion as a horrid thing on the actions of a bunch many years ago or recently?

A suicide bomber blew up a school, so that does also make me want to blow something up?

Atheists are no better than the religious people they criticize/slander.

Sometimes a lot of atheists also need to get their heads out of their asses.

 

[Tic Tach]

Atheists are no better than the religious people they criticize/slander.

Wow, two mistakes in one sentence.

a) Atheists never made the claim that they are better. Historically that has been the other way around.

b) I think I can speak for many non-theists when I say that I/we are not criticizing or slandering the person, rather, we are discussing (often vigorously) whether or not certain claims are true or not, and if certain beliefs are tenable.

 

[Tic Tach]

And if there is an answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, then I'm happy to believe it's forty-two

Heretic!!! It's 56!

Release the hounds!

 

[homeforsummer]

Heretic!!! It's 56!

Release the hounds!

You've not read Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, have you...

 

[Grand Prix]

It's a really, really grey area. Rules are rules because everything, right until you reach a quantum level, adheres to the physical rules of the universe. It's nothing to do with how we observe it, more that we can observe it because that's how things happen.

Exactly. We're not observing what cannot be observed by us.

And the fact that at a quantum level things go completely crazy leaves us under no illusion that there is something else going on, but that just means it's an area of science we're yet to fully understand, rather than the presence of a mystical being.

Right.

Again, there's a big philosophical grey area there. Saying "we have no reason to think otherwise" seems to me to be a little unfair on those who dedicate their lives to finding out more about our existence. Science isn't about discovering our perception of things, it's about investigating what's actually happening.

I don't think it is unfair. Not any more unfair at least than expecting Mr. Frump the 2-Dimensional Guy to understand what he cannot observe: the concepts of "up" and "down." How can I possibly expect people to observe what we cannot observe on our reference plane? I guess I can concede that the things we cannot observe are non-existing, at least in function.

Turning it into a big philosophical discussion just seems like a bit of a cop-out, because then you may as well dismiss absolutely everything in life as "well, it's just the way we see it" and everything the human race has ever achieved just becomes moot.

That's why I'm quite happy to assume that there is no "meaning of life", and that life is just the result of a sequence of events and nothing more. Once you start worrying about what life actually means, you start forgetting to enjoy life itself.

And if there is an answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, then I'm happy to believe it's forty-two And if that's the case, then we're still searching for the question to the answer

I don't think there is a meaning to life either. Our DNA just "wants" us to think there is, so it can continue its endless and somewhat pointless journey of reproducing. It doesn't know or understand why, nor should we expect it to. It exists because it is reproducing matter. Much like the universe. Constantly expanding into itself with no reason or function. That we can see, at least.

We're born with the concept of a beginning and ending. Doesn't necessarily mean everything else has a beginning and an ending.

Which takes us back to square one: God - there's no way of proving he/she exists, and no way of disproving it either. Which doesn't seem right to me because it goes against the inquisitive and explorative nature of the human race. To believe in a higher power is to accept that everything happens because it's his or her will, rather than because occasionally, "s*** happens" (as they say), beyond anyone's control.

I'm sure it's very comforting to know that God is in charge, but as I've said much earlier in this thread, if our species had always chosen the safe and comforting route to everything, we wouldn't be here today as our ancestors would never have sought to improve our lot as a species.

We can't help our inquisitive nature. It's just the way we are. Always looking for things that don't matter in reality, because it has benefitted the survival of our DNA in the past. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy life though.

 

[homeforsummer]

Exactly. We're not observing what cannot be observed by us.

Everything can theoretically be observed on some level - certain things we simply haven't learned to observe yet.

It's not that things and unobservable, it's that they're unobservable for the moment.

I don't think it is unfair. Not any more unfair at least than expecting Mr. Frump the 2-Dimensional Guy to understand what he cannot observe: the concepts of "up" and "down." How can I possibly expect people to observe what we cannot observe on our reference plane? I guess I can concede that the things we cannot observe are non-existing, at least in function.

Here's the other thing - just because something is unobservable, it doesn't mean that there's no evidence for it. We can't technically observe dark matter but there's strong evidence to suggest it exists from the observable properties of things it interacts with.

With regards to god-like beings, there is no evidence to suggest they exist because their impact is completely unobservable. What we have with God is nothing to observe, and no evidence that he even exists from things we can observe.

We can't help our inquisitive nature. It's just the way we are. Always looking for things that don't matter in reality, because it has benefitted the survival of our DNA in the past. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy life though.

My point was that believing in God seems to go against the inquisitive aspect of our human nature. It's simply "making do" with a concept because it's comforting, rather than exploring outside of your comfort zone.

If the whole human race had always unquestionably believed in a God then we wouldn't have advanced as a species because we would never have had any reason to further ourselves through science. Inquisition is part of our human nature but it's something that the more religious amongst us don't seem too inclined towards.

 

[Tic Tach]

With regards to god-like beings, there is no evidence to suggest they exist because their impact is completely unobservable. What we have with God is nothing to observe, and no evidence that he even exists from things we can observe.

Or in other words, is the existance of what we can observe made easier or harder to explain by suggesting the existance of things we cannot observe?

My point was that believing in God seems to go against the inquisitive aspect of our human nature. It's simply "making do" with a concept because it's comforting, rather than exploring outside of your comfort zone.

If the whole human race had always unquestionably believed in a God then we wouldn't have advanced as a species because we would never have had any reason to further ourselves through science. Inquisition is part of our human nature but it's something that the more religious amongst us don't seem too inclined towards.

Well said. Reminds me of this old adage:

Faith: the effort to believe that which your common sense tells you is not true. (Elbert Hubbard)

 

[Mr. S]

So the both of you base an entire religion as a horrid thing on the actions of a bunch many years ago or recently?

A suicide bomber blew up a school, so that does also make me want to blow something up?

Atheists are no better than the religious people they criticize/slander.

Sometimes a lot of atheists also need to get their heads out of their asses.

The person I quoted said the "church" is a "force of good". Church != religion itself. Then again, no matter how long ago something happened: doesn't change a thing.

But while we're at it: it'd be the same as if I'd say all Americans hate muslims because of 9/11. Why? Well, some Americans shot muslims after 9/11...everything's the same, isn't it? Hope that clears things up.

 

[Owen.C93]

Has anyone else typed loads of replies to this thread only to not post them?

 

[PhillGuy]

Has anyone else typed loads of replies to this thread only to not post them?

Yep. I did just now.

 

[Villain]

The person I quoted said the "church" is a "force of good". Church != religion itself. Then again, no matter how long ago something happened: doesn't change a thing.

Different churches and denominations are full of good people and bad people. It's not different than any other section of society. While I'm not religious, I was raised in a religious household and still have very many vehement theist friends, family members, and associates.

To paint with such broad strokes as "church is bad" or "church is good" is very ignorant. I almost always write off a person instantly when they say "all religions ever do is cause wars" and such. Yes, many conflicts can be attributed to religions and/or used said religions as motives - but ask a historian if those wars would've happened anyways.

Take Israel as the tantamount example. Do you know what Israel is aside from being the promised land of three of the worlds largest religions? It's a strategic location. It is the door into middle and south Asia for Western nations. It's one step closer to the southern border of Russia for the Americans. It's a launching pad from Asia into Africa and vice versa. It's the Middle-east's access to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe. It is right by the Suez Canal and the oil-rich deposits of the Arabian Peninsula. I submit that Israel and that area the Middle-East would be fought over regardless of religion, just for the sake of military and economic strategy. I even maintain that stance back towards the Crusades.

Religion is used as an excuse to fight, not a reason to. (Obviously, there have been conflicts, fights, and other horrendous actions which could be based solely on religious histeria - 9/11, Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.) Bear with me and try to stay within my example.

I would also like to point out the good in "church." What say you to those in prison who's lives were turned around by a beleif in a greater good/religion? What about the people who have lost hope in humanity, but find religion and then happiness and acceptance? While many people thump the Bible and other religious texts in an Orthodox manner and shun this and that, those people are outnumbered by the believers with good intentions. The ones who read the positive parts of the religious books. People who don't know how to handle the problems in their lives and then read a passage from their religious book of choice and then suddenly don't feel bad and are motivated to make a proper move/change.

John 3:16 is a beautiful example. One who is religious can read that text and ponder the amount of love in it and from that meditation/understanding have their own problems seem insignificant and more easily handled. I'm not saying that God is making them feel better or some divine actions are helping them, but when you beleive that the most powerful force in the Universe sent his one--and only son--to help you, and then allow his son to be killed for you in a violent, horrible manner - it can make you feel a lot better about your own life.

So no, church isn't all bad. Religions are not all bad. Churches and religions are not all good either, but there aught to be something positive said about the social values and peaceful goods that can be motivated by a church or other religious institution. Homeless shelters, support groups, private counselling, third world assistance, and so on - missions by those with faith who are trying to make the world beautiful.

 

[Joel]

Excellent post Villain.

I know a lot of people personally, including my supposedly "open minded" religion teacher this year, who think Christianity is better than Islam because in Saudi Arabia they stone people, burqas, etc etc. I'm of the opinion that if Christianity were prevalent in the middle east, and Islam in the Western world, there wouldn't be much difference at all. As you said with Israel, it's often more about the location and socio-economic situation than the religion or the excuses to fight.

 

[Villain]

Thank you. One of the best quotes I've ever heard was from Ghandi. After years of theological study he said:

If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.

 

[Grand Prix]

Everything can theoretically be observed on some level - certain things we simply haven't learned to observe yet.

It's not that things and unobservable, it's that they're unobservable for the moment.

Of course. Do you really expect us to ever observe (directly or indirectly) non-existing concepts on our plane of reference though? Let's use Mr. Frump again. We have no evidence to suggest 2nd-Dimensional beings exist, but another thing is that if they did, they wouldn't be able to comprehend our dimension. (In other words, we wouldn't exist to them either)

Suppose we did eventually find evidence of Mr. Frump's existence, and a way to interact with said existence. We could raise him up and lower him down all we like, but he won't even know it is happening. (We couldn't interact with him anyway, but this is a what-if scenario) On the other hand, if we brought him into our universe, he would experience height, but he would have no 🤬 clue what is going on. After all, he evolved in a world that doesn't need height. He has no capacity of understanding it.


Apply this to our relationship (or non-existing relationship, if you prefer) with higher-dimensional beings. We have no evidence to suggest they exist. For us to experience them, we would need to be in their universe. For them to interact with us, they would need to be in our universe, and lose the "powers" of their dimension. (We probably couldn't survive a transportation to another dimension anyways) Hence, they don't exist.

Here's the other thing - just because something is unobservable, it doesn't mean that there's no evidence for it. We can't technically observe dark matter but there's strong evidence to suggest it exists from the observable properties of things it interacts with.

With regards to god-like beings, there is no evidence to suggest they exist because their impact is completely unobservable. What we have with God is nothing to observe, and no evidence that he even exists from things we can observe.

Indirect observation is still observation.

No evidence that we can observe or understand, at least. See above.

(The evidence doesn't exist to us )

My point was that believing in God seems to go against the inquisitive aspect of our human nature. It's simply "making do" with a concept because it's comforting, rather than exploring outside of your comfort zone.

If the whole human race had always unquestionably believed in a God then we wouldn't have advanced as a species because we would never have had any reason to further ourselves through science. Inquisition is part of our human nature but it's something that the more religious amongst us don't seem too inclined towards.

Totally agreed with these statements.


Edit: Great post Villian. 👍

 

[Exorcet]

Of course. Do you really expect us to ever observe (directly or indirectly) non-existing concepts on our plane of reference though? Let's use Mr. Frump again. We have no evidence to suggest 2nd-Dimensional beings exist, but another thing is that if they did, they wouldn't be able to comprehend our dimension. (In other words, we wouldn't exist to them either)

Suppose we did eventually find evidence of Mr. Frump's existence, and a way to interact with said existence. We could raise him up and lower him down all we like, but he won't even know it is happening. (We couldn't interact with him anyway, but this is a what-if scenario) On the other hand, if we brought him into our universe, he would experience height, but he would have no 🤬 clue what is going on. After all, he evolved in a world that doesn't need height. He has no capacity of understanding it.

I'll give you that a 2D being might not really feel at home in a 3D world, but how would you know if he would be able to understand or not? We already have math for 4+ dimensions (and these are spatial dimensions, not the dimensions you find in string theory, so they don't necessarily exist). a 4D world might not make sense to our eyes, but we may not end up completely lost.

Apply this to our relationship (or non-existing relationship, if you prefer) with higher-dimensional beings. We have no evidence to suggest they exist. For us to experience them, we would need to be in their universe. For them to interact with us, they would need to be in our universe, and lose the "powers" of their dimension. (We probably couldn't survive a transportation to another dimension anyways) Hence, they don't exist.

Why couldn't they communicate through a medium?

 

[AndersonG22]

If god exists then please god, strike me down with the best you got!

 

[Grand Prix]

I'll give you that a 2D being might not really feel at home in a 3D world, but how would you know if he would be able to understand or not? We already have math for 4+ dimensions (and these are spatial dimensions, not the dimensions you find in string theory, so they don't necessarily exist). a 4D world might not make sense to our eyes, but we may not end up completely lost.

Mr. Frump probably could understand our world after being exposed to it, I'll give you that. He still has no reason to assume that he understands our world before being exposed to it, however. Or a reason to assume it even exists. Perhaps HFS is right and that humans can learn everything there is to know about the universe, given enough time.

But see, we have no reason to assume otherwise. We think we can learn everything.

Why couldn't they communicate through a medium?

What would that medium be?

 

[Exorcet]

I don't know. I'm questioning the idea that the two parties would need to be in the same place to communicate.

 

[Lain]

Excellent post Villain.

I agree, except for this part:

So no, church isn't all bad. Religions are not all bad. Churches and religions are not all good either, but there aught to be something positive said about the social values and peaceful goods that can be motivated by a church or other religious institution. Homeless shelters, support groups, private counselling, third world assistance, and so on - missions by those with faith who are trying to make the world beautiful.

This seems to be implying that religious folk are more likely to lend a helping hand than atheists. I'd be willing to bet that the kind-hearted Christians who do these positive things would be just as willing to do them if they weren't Christian. The only thing that religion brings to the table in this regard is that it's organized. But we can organize these types of projects just fine sans religion. 👍

 

[Villain]

This seems to be implying that religious folk are more likely to lend a helping hand than atheists. I'd be willing to bet that the kind-hearted Christians who do these positive things would be just as willing to do them if they weren't Christian. The only thing that religion brings to the table in this regard is that it's organized. But we can organize these types of projects just fine sans religion. 👍

No, it doesn't (and isn't intended to) imply that at all. I don't think I even used the word atheist once in that entire post. For good reason, too. I was only trying to bring into the conversation a little perspective on the positives which can be brought by those involved in a religious institution. Positives which could shed a light on the continued existence of religion in spite of the science fact which flies in its face.

I like how the only point anyone found to argue with my post was an implied one... There's always something, isn't there?

 

[Lain]

No, it doesn't imply that at all. I don't think I even used the word atheist once in that entire post. For good reason, too. I was only trying to shed a little light on the positives that can be brought by those involved in a Religious institution. Positives which could shed a light on the continued existence of religion in spite of the science fact which flies in its face.

I like how the only point anyone found to argue with my post was an implied one... There's always something, isn't there?

I'm just saying that religion doesn't really deserve as much credit for spurring good deeds as your post might suggest.

The perpetuation of religion is mostly due to indoctrination at a young age, and the rejection of the scientific facts that results from it.

 

[Grand Prix]

I don't know. I'm questioning the idea that the two parties would need to be in the same place to communicate.

I was mostly speaking of interaction between the two. A god-like being couldn't use his dimensional advantages to create the Earth in 7 days, for instance. To manipulate with our world in that manner he would need to actually be a part of that world (and therefore lose his advantages for creating the Earth in the first place, because he is bound by the limits of our dimension).

(Of course, it is entirely possible that God is a part of our universe and he just seems all-powerful to us from a relative point of view, but we've seen no evidence that suggests this is the case)

It wouldn't be able to manipulate from outside of our world either. It would be like us trying to pick up Mr. Frump. A 3D hand trying to grab a 2D object. (Mind boggling if you think about it long enough)


Communication would be a similar case I think. Energy used to communicate in their world would need to be transferred to the 3D counterpart somehow. Would be very curious phenomenon to see.

 

[homeforsummer]

:snip:

I see your point, but I still think it doesn't apply.

For example: If something is unobservable and there's no evidence to suggest it exists in our reference plane, but observable and evident in another, then to all intents and purposes it still doesn't exist to people in our reference plane.

There might be another dimension containing God, unicorns and lawyers who make the world a better place but if they have exactly zero impact on our own then as far as we are concerned, they don't exist. And indeed, they can have no impact upon our own dimension, other than in our minds.

For this reason even if a god does exist, they would have absolutely nothing to do with our own dimension, so why worship them? So yes, I agree that we therefore can't prove they don't exist, but as far as I'm concerned if we are unable to interact on our own reference plane then that's as good as nonexistance.

And again, the onus isn't on us to prove that God doesn't exist, it's on God and his followers to prove that he does.

In fact, I see in your post above you've even hinted at the same yourself - for a God to have created our universe he or she would have to exist on our reference plane and therefore he/she would have to be observable or show clear evidence that they exist. If they don't exist in our dimension and operate on a different level, then they can't have created everything we see.

 

[niky]

Actually, it has been shown that you cannot know everything about a particular system if you are embedded in it... so if God is omnipotent, he cannot be part of this Universe, and must exist outside of it. Since we are embedded within the Universe and cannot obtain information about what is outside of it, we cannot validate or invalidate the existence of a "God the Omega" (universal creator)... though we can show that "God the Alpha" (personal deity) is ambivalent, at best, and thus either non-existent, or not worth worshipping.

 

[Grand Prix]

I see your point, but I still think it doesn't apply.

For example: If something is unobservable and there's no evidence to suggest it exists in our reference plane, but observable and evident in another, then to all intents and purposes it still doesn't exist to people in our reference plane.

There might be another dimension containing God, unicorns and lawyers who make the world a better place but if they have exactly zero impact on our own then as far as we are concerned, they don't exist. And indeed, they can have no impact upon our own dimension, other than in our minds.

For this reason even if a god does exist, they would have absolutely nothing to do with our own dimension, so why worship them? So yes, I agree that we therefore can't prove they don't exist, but as far as I'm concerned if we are unable to interact on our own reference plane then that's as good as nonexistance.

And again, the onus isn't on us to prove that God doesn't exist, it's on God and his followers to prove that he does.

In fact, I see in your post above you've even hinted at the same yourself - for a God to have created our universe he or she would have to exist on our reference plane and therefore he/she would have to be observable or show clear evidence that they exist. If they don't exist in our dimension and operate on a different level, then they can't have created everything we see.

We reached a point of agreement. Yay!

 

[homeforsummer]

Actually, it has been shown that you cannot know everything about a particular system if you are embedded in it... so if God is omnipotent, he cannot be part of this Universe, and must exist outside of it. Since we are embedded within the Universe and cannot obtain information about what is outside of it, we cannot validate or invalidate the existence of a "God the Omega" (universal creator)... though we can show that "God the Alpha" (personal deity) is ambivalent, at best, and thus either non-existent, or not worth worshipping.

Now you've just ruined everything

 

[Grand Prix]

Actually, it has been shown that you cannot know everything about a particular system if you are embedded in it... so if God is omnipotent, he cannot be part of this Universe, and must exist outside of it. Since we are embedded within the Universe and cannot obtain information about what is outside of it, we cannot validate or invalidate the existence of a "God the Omega" (universal creator)... though we can show that "God the Alpha" (personal deity) is ambivalent, at best, and thus either non-existent, or not worth worshipping.

Y U NO post this earlier?

 

[dhandeh]

I find the vote options slightly patronising. Surely, yes, possibly or no, would have sufficed.

Each to their own, but I don't believe there is a all creating god. Faith on the other hand is a totally different argument.

 

[Exorcet]

I was mostly speaking of interaction between the two. A god-like being couldn't use his dimensional advantages to create the Earth in 7 days, for instance. To manipulate with our world in that manner he would need to actually be a part of that world (and therefore lose his advantages for creating the Earth in the first place, because he is bound by the limits of our dimension).

It's been hyothesized that gravitons can flow through different dimensions, so perhaps forces can be controlled from external dimensions.

While what you're saying does seem to make sense, I can't shake feeling that it's based on an unproven assumptions (dimensions can't interact).

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=383950 (sorry it's not a link to a source, but I couldn't find one specifically on the dimension traveling abilities of gravitons, maybe I'll look again later.)