Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Garygaz]

this is a cop out. to say their arguments dont need to adhere to logic and reason can allow them to therefore argue anything. if we accept this, there exists zero grounds for debate. we can all go home.

how convenient it is that the science that disproves it is the thing that doesnt matter at all.

Well that's why it's called a leap of faith. As I said, I'm agnostic, but I find it easy to understand the thought process of a person who believes that IF there was a supreme being, why the hell would it have to follow the laws which it created, it is omnipresent and omnipotent, infinetly more intelligent then us, thereby impossible for our mere brains to understand. Though, yes, I can see why you see this as a cop out of a belief. That's why I'm stuck in no where land

 

[Enteebee]

Well that's why it's called a leap of faith. As I said, I'm agnostic, but I find it easy to understand the thought process of a person who believes that IF there was a supreme being, why the hell would it have to follow the laws which it created, it is omnipresent and omnipotent, infinetly more intelligent then us, thereby impossible for our mere brains to understand. Though, yes, I can see why you see this as a cop out of a belief. That's why I'm stuck in no where land

The thing I'd say though is that they're being inconsistent... Belief in one thing which doesn't follow our laws/we cannot know about is equal to belief in another (i.e. say... pixies which shoot arrows into our butts and make us fall in love with each other), if they accept one and not the other they have to give good reason why. Do you know that a famous christian saint/scholar (St Augustine of Hippo) even acknowledged that if there is a god we will find evidence of him in science? "Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." - Augustine.

 

[Riet]

I'm agnostic, but to those who do believe in god, it is kind of accepted that he doesn't follow any laws of physics, creation, time so it is pointless to try and describe it in a methodical scientific manner

See, this is silly. I'll put it in biblical terms:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

 

[*TRUE*]

It's a bit of a problem for me.. to be honest I usually fall down on the side of letting people know what I truly think is the truth as I feel it isn't my job to protect anyone, if someone has cancer I think it's up to them to decide how to deal with it etc... It's not so much a moral dilemma for me as my selfish desire for everyone to just be happy around me.

I love truth. I love honesty. Hence my user name TRUE. I try to be truthful myself - it doesnt always end well , for me or for others.
I think we can make an effort to blend tact with truth , or even to let alone those who really do not want to hear our version...
We cant help other people taking some things badly , for example ( and its no issue at all Squeenie) but when Squeenie said "live in their happy little world" that bothered me for the connotations i felt it had.
On the other hand , we can minimise offence and maximise constructive discussion by refraining from resorting to personal insults...particularly if we do not know the person. Saying , ah well i read your posts and u seem like an idiot so GO DIE...thats just childish.

 

[squeenie]

this is a cop out. to say their arguments dont need to adhere to logic and reason can allow them to therefore argue anything. if we accept this, there exists zero grounds for debate. we can all go home.

how convenient it is that the science that disproves it is the thing that doesnt matter at all.

But you see, in a lot of religions, logic and reason do not apply to their beliefs. It's all based on faith.

This is why I think that this debate won't ever have a conclusive end. Fundies are always going to be proclaiming their beliefs no matter what, and people are always going to be arguing about space, time, evolution and all these other wonderful things that arise from these kinds of questions.

But the fact that many people have put forth such insightful and well researched arguments (like MoonlightSonata's post at the start), has made this a worthwhile thread. I've learnt some interesting things from all this, and it has given me a chance to put into practice the skills of logic and argument that I've been studying with my English tutor.

 

[KFunk]

The inherent point in my arguement that before the beginning of scientific time, be it philosophical time, or whatever you call it, there was something that caused everything, and something triggered it/created it.

And before scientific space there was philosophical space.

 

[Garygaz]

Bible quoting? the bible was written by people (not god) capable of making mistakes, not divine in their own right. btw I'm only taking the stance of I am atm because no one else is defending this side of the arguement, otherwise i may be on the other side

Btw, on my arguement on time before:

'Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration. Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such a measure – for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year – is commonly used instead of true time.'

 

[KFunk]

fuck, b10. Our responses are so similar, further proof of the dogmatic atheist brainwashing of our secular education system.

The convergence of rational inquiry I suppose? Perhaps cause for hope, perhaps not.

 

[Enteebee]

'Absolute, true, and mathematical time, in and of itself and of its own nature, without reference to anything external, flows uniformly and by another name is called duration. Relative, apparent, and common time is any sensible and external measure (precise or imprecise) of duration by means of motion; such a measure – for example, an hour, a day, a month, a year – is commonly used instead of true time.'

I honestly don't see your point. Do you not think that there could have been a time=0 ?

 

[squeenie]

I love truth. I love honesty. Hence my user name TRUE. I try to be truthful myself - it doesnt always end well , for me or for others.
I think we can make an effort to blend tact with truth , or even to let alone those who really do not want to hear our version...
We cant help other people taking some things badly , for example ( and its no issue at all Squeenie) but when Squeenie said "live in their happy little world" that bothered me for the connotations i felt it had.
On the other hand , we can minimise offence and maximise constructive discussion by refraining from resorting to personal insults...particularly if we do not know the person. Saying , ah well i read your posts and u seem like an idiot so GO DIE...thats just childish.

Heh. I'm well known at school for (over)using the phrase "happy little world". I've been studying logic and reason for a while now. It's a fascinating topic, and since I want to work in research and development, its one of those skills that you really need to do well.

Yeah, personal insults and attacks won't help at all here. But unfortunately, there will always be people who resort to these kinds of things, and well, they just need to learn to grow up. I have to say, through patient discussion in this thread, I've really learned a lot about how other people see religion, and why they believe these things. It's made me more accepting of other people's beliefs.

 

[Garygaz]

I honestly don't see your point. Do you not think that there could have been a time=0 ?

No, I believe there was, but also there is a measurement of time which is perpetual.

Btw, on a semi-unrelated note:

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


Scientest's demi-god, Einstein, believed in God. Where to now?!


Edit: # Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

 

[squeenie]

Its a difficult concept to grasp, and I honestly can't imagine a time=0 point either. But at the same time, it seems like a logical explanation to say that time has to have some sort of starting point (like everything else does). This is all starting to sound like doublethink from Nineteen Eighty Four... accepting a statement that seems completely impossible...

 

[Enteebee]

No, I believe there was, but also there is a measurement of time which is perpetual.

Time is perpetual? If things can be infinite then I see no need for God either.

Scientest's demi-god, Einstein, believed in God. Where to now?!

If that's what EB has to say I'm afraid they're wrong...

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

 

[Enteebee]

Its a difficult concept to grasp, and I honestly can't imagine a time=0 point either. But at the same time, it seems like a logical explanation to say that time has to have some sort of starting point (like everything else does). This is all starting to sound like doublethink from Nineteen Eighty Four... accepting a statement that seems completely impossible...

I'm not too concerned tbh. If there is no time=0 then time is eternal and I see no reason why our universe in some sense can't have always existed, if time had a beginning after time=0 then my previous arguments apply. My point is merely to dismiss the myth that we need a creator to explain how our universe came into being, not to delicately explain exactly how it is that our universe has... I nor anyone else is able to do that yet afaik.

Einstein was wrong about the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement...

Maybe he was? There's still research being done into hidden variable theories though.

 

[Riet]

Einstein was wrong about the uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement...

 

[*TRUE*]

Its a difficult concept to grasp, and I honestly can't imagine a time=0 point either. But at the same time, it seems like a logical explanation to say that time has to have some sort of starting point (like everything else does). This is all starting to sound like doublethink from Nineteen Eighty Four... accepting a statement that seems completely impossible...

Personally i never took issue with time = 0
I find it harder to imagine what WAS (not what happened , just what WAS)before time =0. I just dont observe anything at all to help me comprehend. It seems it requires some other reality , or physical law , or something.

 

[Graney]

I'm sick of Einstein being brought into discussions on god, who gives a shit what he thought. His opinion on god is as significant as the popes opinion on special relativity.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I'm sick of Einstein being brought into discussions on god, who gives a shit what he thought. His opinion on god is as significant as the popes opinion on special relativity.

The poor guy has had his words used to justify every theological & political stance imaginable

 

[Enteebee]

I find it harder to imagine what WAS (not what happened , just what WAS)before time =0. I just dont observe anything at all to help me comprehend. It seems it requires some other reality , or physical law , or something.

Imagine our reality as it is now stopping suddenly in a freeze frame, all our attributes are only capable of 1 thing. That is the universe without time. Now just imagine that instead of a reality with an extremely changed form such as ours you have a reality made up of the most basic form of everything we currently have.

 

[squeenie]

Personally i never took issue with time = 0
I find it harder to imagine what WAS (not what happened , just what WAS)before time =0. I just dont observe anything at all to help me comprehend. It seems it requires some other reality , or physical law , or something.

Hmm... I don't think its something that we'll ever be able to imagine. Humanity has its limits, and we really should take note of that. If we tried to extend ourselves beyond our limits, well, we'd really screw ourselves over.

Don't hurt your mind thinking about it. There are much better things to be done, honestly.