Do you believe in God?

[Tic Tach]

We already know that either God exists or he doesn't (it's like saying that a light is either on or off - they're the only two possible scenarios), the whole idea of the thread is for people to discuss why they think he exists or he doesn't.

And this is key. When you start to investigate the reasons why people believe in god, you find that the reasons are terrible. It's no coincidence that 99.99999% of the time (yes, I made up that number but I sense it's probably close) ....a person's religion is that of their parents. Not a good enough reason.

I highly recommend this book to all theists and non theists. It is not a polemic against religion, rather, the author looks at and attempts to understand the reasons why people believe in god. Here is an audio interview with the author.

 

[Sam48]

Probability is a valid part of science. Even if the chance of life was only .0001% for each planet, the chance that every planet except Earth is barren would be

.99999^number of planets in a given system - 1

First, what if the chances were next to zero? Or in other words, just high enough for us, and that's it. That probably isn't the case, but it's possible. And secondly, chance, is just chance. It doesn't mean it will definitely happen, regardless of the numbers.

The universe is finite as far as we know. But reality is not. See Danoff's post and the second video in my last post.

It's an explanation really no different than your's, and it doesn't address my statement.

 

[Dotini]

We already know that either God exists or he doesn't (it's like saying that a light is either on or off - they're the only two possible scenarios), the whole idea of the thread is for people to discuss why they think he exists or he doesn't.

I would respectfully disagree with this assertion, firstly because we have not defined precisely what God is or is not. With a definition acceptable to everybody. So there are many possible scenarios. It even may be that God "kind of exists", or "exists only as consciousness" - whatever that is - or maybe God just "used to exist, but doesn't anymore". Since we don't have a thread for "What exactly is God?", we must use this thread for more than discussing personal motives, which never solves a thing.

And this is key. When you start to investigate the reasons why people believe in god, you find that the reasons are terrible. It's no coincidence that 99.99999% of the time (yes, I made up that number but I sense it's probably close) ....a person's religion is that of their parents. Not a good enough reason.

So if you restrict the question to only "Why do you believe?", then for 99% of respondents, a person's parents get dragged into the discussion? So if you're not a rebellious, individualistic atheist, you're "not good enough"?

I submit this slightly poisons the wells of discussion.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[TheCracker]

So if you restrict the question to only "Why do you believe?", then for 99% of respondents, a person's parents get dragged into the discussion? So if you're not a rebellious, individualistic atheist, you're "not good enough"?

That depends on whether your parents are religious or not. If your parents were without religion too, then being an atheist is also dragging your parents into the discussion is it not? - if that is the case does it still make one rebellious and individualistic?

 

[Dotini]

That depends on whether your parents are religious or not. If your parents were without religion too, then being an atheist is also dragging your parents into the discussion is it not?

Yes, exactly! And it shouldn't be needful to do so.

 

[Tic Tach]

So if you restrict the question to only "Why do you believe?"......

Could you please point out where I suggested that the question is "restricted to"?

...then for 99% of respondents, a person's parents get dragged into the discussion?

If that's the case, then that's the case? Do you feel that if that is so, it's not "fair" somehow?

So if you're not a rebellious, individualistic atheist, you're "not good enough"?

a) Where did you get "rebellious" and "individualistic" from?

b) I never said that the person isn't good enough, rather, their reasons for belief aren't.



No disrepect, but what you read seems to go through a Steve filter and gets distorted.

 

[Tic Tach]

Yes, exactly! And it shouldn't be needful to do so.

Why not?

 

[Exorcet]

First, what if the chances were next to zero? Or in other words, just high enough for us, and that's it. That probably isn't the case, but it's possible. And secondly, chance, is just chance. It doesn't mean it will definitely happen, regardless of the numbers.

My point was that even very small chances don't rule that life could be out there. Also, given the availability of organic material and the fact that not all planets are equal (some are in very good spots for life), an extremely low overall probability doesn't mean that there aren't high local probabilities in certain areas.

Also, 1 and 0 are very certain answers in probability. 1 will happen. 0 will never happen. If we're right that reality does go through all possible situations, then there is probability 1 that there is life elsewhere (though it may not be in our universe).

It's an explanation really no different than your's, and it doesn't address my statement.

How does it not address your statement? The universe is not infinite. The multiverse is. I'm assuming he was talking about the multiverse in his post.

 

[homeforsummer]

Why infinite? I'm not saying it isn't an extremely large number, but the universe is only so big, isn't it?

Let me rephrase, as "infinite" is misleading. Statistically, the universe is nearly infinite (as in, the numbers are so vast that the probability of anything happening becomes a near-certainty), since the estimated observable diameter is 93 billion light years. There are 200 billion observable galaxies.

Our own Milky Way galaxy has 200-400 billion stars, an estimated 50 billion planets around those stars, of which 500 million are estimated to be in the habitable zones around their stars.

So with around 200 billion galaxies observable, and assuming that all galaxies are the same size as the Milky Way (many are bigger), we're now talking 200 billion galaxies multiplied by 500 million theoretically habitable planets, which to save you the mathematics is 1.0 × 10*20.

Or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 quintillion) theoretically habitable planets. I don't know about you, but numbers like that are as good as infinite statistically. And that's just in the 13-odd billion light year range we can see.

Now life is a statistical certainty, since we're the evidence of that. I actually missed your inaccuracy before about us not knowing how life started, because we're well aware of how life started on our planet - it's essentially down to a few simple "ingredients", the "building blocks of life". We're not quite sure how those building blocks got here, but in 4.5 billion years of our planet (most of which was very violent physically and chemically, the sort of conditions that change chemical compounds) there's been plenty of chances for life to form. Given those quadrillions of other potential chances for life to form, life elsewhere in the universe is as good as a statistical certainty.

Put another way: If the chances of life existing were a number pretty close to zero... say, 0.000000000001, then that still leaves 100 million planets likely to harbour life

I'm certainly not saying it'd be intelligent life, but life is life. We're talking in terms of almost unimaginable numbers here, and I'm aware it's very difficult to wrap your head around (it's taken me quite a long time to work out this post!) but life elsewhere in the universe is essentially a statistical certainty, or basically there are near-infinite chances for life.

And that's what I meant by infinite

That's also why (getting slightly closer back to the topic of God ) it makes more sense that things can just "happen", because with such huge numbers the chances of even the most unlikely events happening become massively more likely. And the more likely that something is to happen, the less relevant the concept of a God who created everything becomes.

If our solar system was literally the only thing that existed in the universe and beyond us the laws of the universe were completely different, and our existence made no sense whatsoever, then the case for God would be much easier to argue, because we'd have no suitable answers as to how we got here.

 

[Mr. S]

I would respectfully disagree with this assertion, firstly because we have not defined precisely what God is or is not. With a definition acceptable to everybody. So there are many possible scenarios. It even may be that God "kind of exists", or "exists only as consciousness" - whatever that is - or maybe God just "used to exist, but doesn't anymore". Since we don't have a thread for "What exactly is God?", we must use this thread for more than discussing personal motives, which never solves a thing.

So if you restrict the question to only "Why do you believe?", then for 99% of respondents, a person's parents get dragged into the discussion? So if you're not a rebellious, individualistic atheist, you're "not good enough"?

I submit this slightly poisons the wells of discussion.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

You, good sir, are my hero.

The main problem will always persist: religions and atheism as well is merely the question of who's having to coolest imaginary friend. Whilst religious people are fighting over IF their friend is the collest, the atheists chime in and claim having no imaginary friend at all is the way to go.

 

[homeforsummer]

I would respectfully disagree with this assertion, firstly because we have not defined precisely what God is or is not. With a definition acceptable to everybody. So there are many possible scenarios. It even may be that God "kind of exists", or "exists only as consciousness" - whatever that is - or maybe God just "used to exist, but doesn't anymore". Since we don't have a thread for "What exactly is God?", we must use this thread for more than discussing personal motives, which never solves a thing.

If God "kind of exists" then he exists.

If God "exists only as consciousness" then he doesn't exist, just like unicorns don't exist if they're only in your mind.

If God "used to exist" then you can either say that he doesn't exist because he's no longer there, in which case millions of people are following absolutely nothing (or following their minds), or that God does exist because he once existed, in the same way that anyone who has died in the past once existed, in which case he's still no longer in existence and again, people are praying to something that's no longer there to hear their prayers.

Either way, there are still two possible scenarios: Either he did/does, or didn't/doesn't.

I'm actually quite happy to believe that God exists in consciousness, because the evidence for that are all the people who follow him. However, since that leaves no physical evidence, God doesn't actually exist, and he can't be "God the creator".

Again, I refer to unicorns. They're something the human race has created, rather than vice-versa.

 

[Dotini]

If God "exists only as consciousness" then he doesn't exist, just like unicorns don't exist if they're only in your mind.

"Consciousness" is a term that has many interpretations. Very little is agreed upon. What if we ultimately learn that consciousness is a distributed property, such that all matter and energy, the whole universe, is connected and are within its web? We, as individual consciousnesses, then become nodes of an all-embracing consciousness. We could call this "God". Or maybe we could be a bit more sophisticated about it, and call it "futuristic quantum plasma physics", or "karma", or, my favorite, "banana".

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[homeforsummer]

"Consciousness" is a term that has many interpretations. Very little is agreed upon. What if we ultimately learn that consciousness is a distributed property, such that all matter and energy, the whole universe, is connected and are within its web? We, as individual consciousnesses, then become nodes of an all-embracing consciousness. We could call this "God". Or maybe we could be a bit more sophisticated about it, and call it "futuristic quantum plasma physics", or "karma", or, my favorite, "banana".

For simplicity's sake I interpret consciousness as independent thought. God is just a shared concept in a multitude of independent thoughts. And the Gods we all talk about today are essentially just an image extrapolated from religious texts that are thousands of years old and repeatedly interpreted. It's not like anything constantly changes in the world of religious worship. If anything changes at all...

 

[Sam48]

To respond to both Exorcet & Homeforsummer:

As far as we know, we are alone in this universe. We do not fully understand (Although we believe we are close) how exactly how life begins on any given planet. And, because this is science, we could be missing anything from some nice soft dirt, to something much less likely and much more complex. Or, for all we know, we may have something wrong to begin with. We just don't know yet.

That being said, we cannot place a number on whether or not there is other life out there until we completely understand how we got here to begin with. Right now, numbers & odds mean nothing.

However, if you ask me, I would say there probably is life out there somewhere. But that's just my opinion, and I have nothing to back it up with.

 

[Danoff]

That being said, we cannot place a number on whether or not there is other life out there until we completely understand how we got here to begin with. Right now, numbers mean nothing, even if the odds are extremely high.

Regardless of what the odds are, as the sample size approaches infinity, probability goes to 1.

 

[Sam48]

Regardless of what the odds are, as the sample size approaches infinity, probability goes to 1.

Isn't that idea technically a theory? We don't know that for certain, do we?

 

[homeforsummer]

That being said, we cannot place a number on whether or not there is other life out there until we completely understand how we got here to begin with. Right now, numbers & odds mean nothing.

The numbers are high enough that it's almost a statistical certainty. Did you see my example on the last page? Even if the odds of a planet sustaining life are a trillionth of a percent, that still leaves 100 million planets with life just within the observable universe - not even the entire universe.

Since we already know that life is possible, the chances of other life existing are essentially 1.

 

[Tic Tach]

I love watching the various science shows on TV that explore & display just how vast the universe is. The size of our own little galaxy is mind-boggling enough, and then to see just how many galaxies there are, and how many stars (suns) there are in each galaxy, (staggering numbers), one reasons that because we are a product of a giant chemistry lab, it is likely if not probable that life has cooked up elsewhere. Fuse-blowing stuff.

These are galaxies:

 

[homeforsummer]

The Webb telescope will be even more revealing than Hubble. Might even have the resolution to spot God

 

[Hun200kmh]

What are the odds for that? Above zero?

 

[PeterJB]

As we know it, nothing physical is in infinite supply. Often I wonder to myself, what if there is more than one universe? And if so, how many? And where is the defined boundary of these multiverses? And what lies beyond them? It suddenly makes everything seem much smaller, as everything must stop somewhere if the laws of physics remain constant everywhere.

 

[Owen.C93]

As we know it, nothing physical is in infinite supply. Often I wonder to myself, what if there is more than one universe? And if so, how many? And where is the defined boundary of these multiverses? And what lies beyond them? It suddenly makes everything seem much smaller, as everything must stop somewhere if the laws of physics remain constant everywhere.

Doesn't have any effect on the existence of a god though.

 

[Dotini]

As we know it, nothing physical is in infinite supply. Often I wonder to myself, what if there is more than one universe? And if so, how many? And where is the defined boundary of these multiverses? And what lies beyond them? It suddenly makes everything seem much smaller, as everything must stop somewhere if the laws of physics remain constant everywhere.

This is a good question. Astronomers occasionally mutter about Einstein-Rosen bridges and wormholes to another universe. Now, meet Mr. Longo, a scientist who thinks big. He finds a preponderance of galaxies rotating left-handed in the northern sky, and right-handed in the southern sky. The axis of rotation points at what cosmologists call the "coldspot" (hole?) in the CMBR, or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2815
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23410/
Detection of a Dipole in the Handedness of Spiral Galaxies with Redshifts z ~ 0.04
Authors: Michael J. Longo
(Submitted on 14 Apr 2011)

Abstract: A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals would indicate a parity violating asymmetry in the overall universe and a preferred axis. This study uses 15158 spiral galaxies with redshifts <0.085 from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. An unbinned analysis for a dipole component that made no prior assumptions for the dipole axis gives a dipole asymmetry of -0.0408\pm0.011 with a probability of occurring by chance of 7.9 x 10-4. A similar asymmetry is seen in the Southern Galaxy spin catalog of Iye and Sugai. The axis of the dipole asymmetry lies at approx. (l, b) =(52{\deg}, 68.5{\deg}), roughly along that of our Galaxy and close to alignments observed in the WMAP cosmic microwave background distributions. The observed spin correlation extends out to separations ~210 Mpc/h, while spirals with separations < 20 Mpc/h have smaller spin correlations.

Comments: To be published in Physics Letters B
Subjects: Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.04.008
Cite as: arXiv:1104.2815v1 [astro-ph.CO]


Interesting, even if it seems slightly anti-Copernican to me, and that the CMBR, and especially the coldspot, is not fully understood or agreed to by all cosmologists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[homeforsummer]

We're beginning to drift from the God yes/no discussion here...

 

[Hun200kmh]

The debate got civilized again and that's nice, no name calling lately

I'll state my "why". I will be most probably ridiculed by those that find my "why" a load of 🤬 but so be it, I don't really care that much.

It's all very simply about "Belief". Now, before you say this is my refuge to make any reasonable conversation futile, let me state it again. It's about BELIEF.


1) A SPIRITUAL WORLD
I believe that I'm a different entity than what can be defined through the assembled cells of my body.

therefore

I believe there's a spiritual me.

therefore

I believe my spiritual existence won't die when my body dies

therefore

I believe in the spiritual existence of others

therefore

I believe in a spiritual world not affected by physical death


2) IS THERE A CREATOR IN THIS SPIRITUAL WORLD I CONCEIVE?

Since I'm no God myself (that much I can tell ) I believe my spiritual existence to have been created

therefore

I believe there is a spiritual creator

therefore

I believe there is a God


From here on I could debate on the many things that make me a Christian and, among Christians, a Catholic. But all of that is irrelevant, we're not discussing (well, I'm not) christianity or catholicism.

But in the simplest terms I could write, in a language that is foreign to me ... you guys have my WHY. It's not scientific, but I bet you weren't seriously expecting it to be, were you?

 

[Tic Tach]

I believe that I'm a different entity than what can be defined through the assembled cells of my body.

therefore.......

There is no good reason to "believe" that; other than wishful thinking, fear of death; ego, to name a few. If you accept the fact that we are a part of the tree of life which has evolved on this planet in the last 3.5 billion years, then what good reason do you have to think or feel that the consciousness of homo sapiens survives the death of the brain? We know that our "person" is 100% dependent upon a physical brain, as we witness in brain-injured individuals and in the long, slow good-bye of Alzheimers.

Do you remember what it was like for the 14.5 billion years before you were born? I suspect that death will be exactly the same.

So if your premise is flawed, then so to will be your following steps and conclusions.

 

[Danoff]

Regardless of what the odds are, as the sample size approaches infinity, probability goes to 1.

Isn't that idea technically a theory? We don't know that for certain, do we?

Yes, we know this for certain. It is mathematics. Fix the odds at a non-zero number, raise the sample-size to infinity, you are guaranteed that it will occur (an infinite number of times actually).

 

[Flynn77]

Saw the poll results and felt compelled to post. I believe in God and that's all there is to it. No need to read anything else in this thread, my mind is made up.

 

[Tic Tach]

I believe in God and that's all there is to it. No need to read anything else in this thread, my mind is made up.

Believing is easier than thinking; that's why there will always be more believers than thinkers.


Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so. (Bertrand Russell)

 

[Villain]

[redacted]