322Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI watch a show "Does god create the universe? " by Stephen Hawking, i watch the full show but question remain unanswered. Tell me, what you think about it, what really science says.
May 30th, 2013, 09:53 PM
I watch a show "Does god create the universe? " by Stephen Hawking, i watch the full show but question remain unanswered. Tell me, what you think about it, what really science says.
Science says nothing about god.
Science doesn't consider god.
Science doesn't require god.
'''Natural occurrence''' verses '''Created by a God.'''
Coming to a Science Forum with such a question is a bit of a kick in the teeth.
There will be some that will proclaim a God. I am NOT one of them.
Astrophysics seems to have made a strong case for there not needing to have been created by, at all.
Unfolding, Extending to infinity.
I claim to understand the Origination of this Universe was at the beginning of time and space.
It did Not require a creator. It just begun. Will it ever end ? NO.
What does exist always will and as time only began when it had something to do..
There was no start. Just a mass expansion. I can remember being told that humanity will not like the truth when it finds it.
I agree with that.
and to your question. { Does god exist ? } I have not a single shred of support for any Gods.. No.Originally Posted by astromark
The question remains because it will never be answered. That was likely the point of the show you saw. I haven't seen it but knowing that Steven Hawking is an atheist, at least that is what I have been lead to understand (I've never asked him personally), it was likely intending to make you think about the question more rather than to give you an answer. Believers come to conclusions about god, science does not. By definition god cannot be proven or dis-proven to exist. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of any god. However science does not prove negatives.I watch a show "Does god create the universe? " by Stephen Hawking, i watch the full show but question remain unanswered. Tell me, what you think about it, what really science says.
Really?
How about life, for a start?
Suns?
Who told you that?I can remember being told that humanity will not like the truth when it finds it.
(That sort of statement comes across as "I know the truth, and everyone else is still looking").
Why wouldn't we like it?
Whether science deals with God or not, when one follows the scientific method, they can only draw one logical conclusion.
Yes, God exists.
You can go to Amazon and search the many books that argue for the existence of God if you want. However, I have not read these books.
The reason that I believe that God exists is that I believe God forms a a relationship with people that seek Him, and try to obey His will as described in the Christian Bible. In my opinion, God does not want people to know that He exists who do not know Him.
That is what happened for me. and that is why I don't need to read the "arguments" that people use for the existence of God.
You state this assertion as fact even though you admit that it is a faithful belief.
Also known as Schizophrenia...
The same Holy Bible that instructs the Chosen People to stone children to death for disobedience and to stone women to death for adultery.
N.T.: To cut off your own hands, gouge out your own eyes to prevent sinful thoughts(-- Hey, you notice how there never are any "good Christian folk" who actually DO this?)
Basic cop out for: Overwhelming lack of evidence, overwhelming contradictory evidence to this primitive superstition, lack of any intelligent design, lack of Moral Nature (Example; in the natural world, animals suffer horribly in many situations; removing them from the breeding pool. This supposed source of Morality exercises zero morality in regards to all living things).
In other words, Blind Faith based on a desire to feel close to an Almighty Creator that wuvs you.
god "exists" in the minds of people who want him to.
I wish that would work for a strong positive balance in my bank account. Or unicorns even.
I wish that would work for a strong positive balance in my bank account. Or unicorns even.Don't even bother Seagypsy - I have been working mind over matter on my bank account for years and unfortunately there seems to be a force field round it and money just bounces right off it. I appear to earn quantum money - it is in all places at once and yet nowhere near me......
Better you should ask your "god" about science than ask people in a science forum about god.
Most folks here think they have a better definition of "dark matter" and "dark energy" than of "god".
Here's an interesting exercise:
Define your concept of "GOD" then seek to prove or disprove the veracity of that definition.
Apparently, you are not trying hard enough: The Secret (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The truth is simply that no one knows. God exists outside the boundaries of reality.
If you are scientific-minded and you require support and evidence, God is a fantasy. If you are faith-minded and you seek comfort in the idea that your life is not a purposeless accident, God is the creator.
reality? (that's a tad bold)
maybe,
maybe not
allow me to rephrase:
[If "GOD" exists, then:]God exists outside the boundaries of [scientifically measurable] reality. ...
cool?
Here are some tips to overcome the god virus (because that is what god is - a viral infection of the mind which when caught early in life can destroy you).
1. Remind yourself that the god virus defence of faith is only a metaphor for human gullibility.
2. Remind yourself that nothing in scripture was ever god-given and all was the work of man, usually as a result of mind altering drugs and alcohol.
3. Remind yourself that the god virus has killed countless millions on its behalf and still does.
4. Remind yourself that all god virus explanations for the origin of life and the universe have been transcended by science.
5. Remind yourself that the way the god virus makes money is to sell promises for safe passage into the afterlife.
6. Remind yourself that in knowing this you are not alone. Read the works of Francis Bacon, Thomas Paine, Charles Dupuis and others.
7. Remind yourself that the god virus never was a force for good. It delays progress. It ruins lives. It gives false hope. It is the enemy of reason.
8. Remind yourself that god by its own definition is undefinable. God has only ever been heard (never seen), and never by a group but only by an individual.
... 9. Remind yourself that "ox" is highly biased(dare I say prejudiced) on this subject.
I am impartial.
uh huhI am impartial.
.................
hahahahaha
I don't understand your differentiation. What part of reality isn't scientifically measurable?reality? (that's a tad bold)
maybe,
maybe not
allow me to rephrase:
[If "GOD" exists, then:]God exists outside the boundaries of [scientifically measurable] reality. ...
cool?
If we constrain "reality" to that which is scientifically measurable, then
Reality changes with each new developement in instrumentation.
makes it a tad fickle?
................
long ago and far away, I once took a course entitled "perceptions of momentary reality"
zing
presto changeo
the reality of the moment is different than the reality of the next moment , or the last moment------------which actually makes a lot of sense
......
and, then, we seek "fundamental" reality
immutable
unchangeable
can it really exist?
........
whither hence?
Not fickle; just more accurate.
Why would we say that now? For most of our history that's not been the case.
Or maybe it just means that we get a more accurate look at that reality., then Reality changes with each new developement in instrumentation.
makes it a tad fickle?
how about:
Studies into current conceptions of "reality" are successive approximations toward a goal.
I would hazard that we are far more adept at using(manipulating?) "reality" than understanding reality.
It's a process of accuracy, or precision, then leading to an understanding---ok, so we're closing in on the goal, but we ain't there yet.
So declaring just exactly what is (or isn't) reality may be a tad premature? (ergo, the use of the word "bold")
.......
Dare you speak of exclusivity and reality as though you know all of reality?
if so
From my perspective that is bold and likely a tad rash.
I do not wish to go off topic with too many posts, so you'll have to excuse me for making this my last post for this particular conversation. I shall leave the choice of making a separate thread to continue this discussion to you.
To an extent, certain aspects and/or parts of it. An example would be that we were able to manipulate things from our environment to produce fire before we understood the nature of fire. Fire being an aspect of reality, or properties of matter that resides within reality (or however you wish to phrase it; you get the general meaning.).
With every little advance in our knowledge, we get to know and perhaps understand a little more. If by "there yet" you were perhaps thinking about complete knowledge and mastery, I would agree and add that with so much do we do not yet know, we still have a long way to go. But the upside of not being there yet keeps life interesting though.
Well, we have identified quite abit about reality so far. Enough to say "something" about it. Such as; no matter how hard we flap our arms like a bat here on Earth, gravity loves us too much to let us fly. Using an aircraft to achieve flight is like a trial separation before the divorce if you care for a poor analogy.
I once thought that the phrase:"May you live in interesting times." was an Irish blessing.... we still have a long way to go. But the upside of not being there yet keeps life interesting though.... :
Imagine my surprise when i was informed that it was a Chinese curse.
~~ Well, you are the 'Genius Duck' that (Who told me that) " Will not find it pleasing," came from theReally?
How about life, for a start?
Suns?
Who told you that?I can remember being told that humanity will not like the truth when it finds it.
(That sort of statement comes across as "I know the truth, and everyone else is still looking").
Why wouldn't we like it?
" The New World Translations of The Holy Scriptures" and a book simply named 'Search' that the same outfit promotes.
I have no doubt that a learned scholar of the Bible would have seen this. and know of this.
LIfe; I can be sure that given the environment and elements and time life is because it can.. and if it can, it will.
I do not need to prove that God did this or that. Science HAS shown it is not required.
Suns... you must be joking, Our Sun is a third generation Star... Energy, matter. Changing its form. Think about that.
and that little quip: I know the truth and everyone else is still looking. I did not say that.
Billions of people are not christians and or are not looking... You are a shrinking minority.
You want to prove that a God did this or that.. Go on.
I will be listening. I am a man of science, so always I am watching. Looking for more..
Really?
You "don't doubt" that a "learned bible scholar" actually knows the truth?
I wonder how he found out, and why he hasn't disseminated it?
I doubt, very much, that he actually does.
He may be certain in his belief, but that's not knowledge.
Except that entropy guarantees that life will eventually die out...LIfe; I can be sure that given the environment and elements and time life is because it can.. and if it can, it will.
Likewise, entropy shows that suns will all eventually die out.Suns... you must be joking, Our Sun is a third generation Star... Energy, matter. Changing its form. Think about that.
Um, what I actually wrote was:and that little quip: I know the truth and everyone else is still looking. I did not say that.
Who told you that?
(That sort of statement comes across as "I know the truth, and everyone else is still looking").
E.g. whoever told you that is effectively saying that.
What?Billions of people are not christians and or are not looking... You are a shrinking minority.
Wrong.You want to prove that a God did this or that.
Then stop making unscientific claims.I am a man of science
Apparently "The Secret" to making money is to dupe poor unsuspecting gullible into giving you their hard earned cash for a nonsensical book telling them that wishful thinking will actually work.Apparently, you are not trying hard enough: The Secret (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but wait, even writing a scam book to sell takes work. apparently even the one knowing the secret hasn't figured out a secret to making money without working for it.
I think God played Morgan Freeman in a movie called "Bruce Almighty".
The Present has no rhythmDaft Punk.
Like you... I do not see that.Really?
You "don't doubt" that a "learned bible scholar" actually knows the truth?
" What truth.. A vaig concept of might have happened is not proof.
I wonder how he found out, and why he hasn't disseminated it?
I doubt, very much, that he actually does.
He may be certain in his belief, but that's not knowledge.
Except that entropy guarantees that life will eventually die out...LIfe; I can be sure that given the environment and elements and time life is because it can.. and if it can, it will.
That might not be true... Likely, but not known.
Likewise, entropy shows that suns will all eventually die out.Suns... you must be joking, Our Sun is a third generation Star... Energy, matter. Changing its form. Think about that.
Not so... we observe star forming regions.. Hundreds of them..
Um, what I actually wrote was:and that little quip: I know the truth and everyone else is still looking. I did not say that.
Who told you that?
(That sort of statement comes across as "I know the truth, and everyone else is still looking").
E.g. whoever told you that is effectively saying that.
They might be...I am not.
What?Billions of people are not christians and or are not looking... You are a shrinking minority.
Yea - naa, What ?
Wrong.You want to prove that a God did this or that.
Then stop making unscientific claims.I am a man of science
I do not know it all. Am happy to be corrected. Willing to accept new information as it is presented..
Like any man of science I demand testing, questioning, and tasting again.
The question as to proof of God or not.. Is not going to be answered here because indoctrinated lies are hard to erase.
Last edited by astromark; May 31st, 2013 at 09:35 PM. Reason: Tasting is Testing Um, err.
"Well, Johnson. I've reworked the theory and accounted for all of the observational data. I'm still not sure... Here, taste this and tell me if it seems right to you..."
Scientifically measurable? No. There are things we're fairly sure about that we just haven't been able to pin down ..... yet.[If "GOD" exists, then:]God exists outside the boundaries of [scientifically measurable] reality. ...
cool?
The most important feature of science is that we're perfectly willing to say whether current theories (analysis, observations) aren't clear enough to say that we know them properly yet. In the immortal words of Dara O'Briain,
"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it'd stop!"
Dara O'Briain: Science doesn't know everything - YouTube
Always ask yourself the question: "What is most feasible; the totally, ridiculously improbable, or the impossible?"
God = hope. There are some on this Forum that have no hope or are HOPELESS!
Nope.
Quite.There are some on this Forum that have no hope or are HOPELESS!
Floated a prayer for ya into the great abyss, I have hope for the hopeless. Measure it.
Funny you should use the words "measure it".
Prayer has been shown to have no effect beyond any psychological one - and that only occurs if the "recipient" is aware of (and believes in) the prayers being said.
I.e. prayer is bunk.
But a nice illustration of how hopeless some posters on this forum are...
It may be hopeless, but I am hoping you can learn something about science. I would pray, but I have no hope it would work.
And don't you think it is a little arrogant to assume others are hopeless? And wouldn't that be a sin?
We have. It's called the placebo effect.
Prayer is a good thing.
(think placebo effect)
There have been (10s of?)Thousands of drug studies over my lifetime comparing no treatment, a placebo, and the actual drug.
In the vast majority of these studies, especially in the psychotropic drugs, placebos have always shown significant improvement of the study subjects.
For some antidepressants, the placebo was as effective as the drug in up to 75% of the cases. (which, of course occasionally meant--no effect.)
Prayer is an extreemly powerful healing agent for those who really believe in prayer.
For some people,(myself included) knowing exactly the source of the pain, whether psychological or physical, is enough for the body to control the pain.
For others, the comfort of prayer, does the deed.
Be not so quick to throw that which you do not understand onto the garbage heap.
....................
while i was keboarding this, flick beat me to the postings
great minds think alike
I suppose you could say I do the same thing to myself when I'm nervous. I talk to myself and tell myself I'm going to be fine and I know what I'm doing etc etc. It changes absolutely nothing, but it makes me feel better.
That having been said, I don't operate under the assumption that what I am doing is communing with God.
Placebo effect is so measurable that it is a factor in any drug study......studies where new drug tratment outcomes have $ on the line. God, hope, creativity, inspiration......exist for some not for others. Not so much arrogance as truthful observation.
God = I am
God = you're not
The meaning of the word "God" is I am. When you calm youself, when you reach into the self, when you find internal courage, inspiration and determination this is an expression of the I am.
Gibberish.
First, you assume that the placebo effect is rationale for religion? That's pretty weak.
Now, you're suggesting that you cannot have hope, creativity, or inspiration without religion? That's not only weak, but chock-a-block with that arrogance you claim isn't really there.
Does that mean I don't exist?
So by redefining the word "god" you think can make it into something real?
I think we can do better than that: The meaning of the word "God" is peanut butter. There you go: Proof that God exists.
1) never used the word religion, you did
2) not my definition, seek the definition of the word God in a reference you trust
3) placebo effect is a measurable characteristic of belief or the self which was in dispute earlier in this thread (thinking pain and BP via biofeedback are also measurable)
4) I may or may not believe in God, but do belueve in peanut butter
By starting that post with "god = hope", you seemed to be implying that only people who believed in (your) God had any hope. That is not truthful observation it is either arrogance or straightforward dishonesty.
If "god=hope" and "god=I am" are not your definitions, could you provide a reference for their source?
Yes, equating random words with positive connotations to "God" is either an act of desperation or ignorance. Granted, God can mean different things to different people, but I was under the assumption that we were going with the Biblical ideal of God and not some hippy-dippy granola-eating socks-and-sandals God-is-all-of-us-dude explanation.
Moderator: I seem to have irritated some of your more established contributors. Will accept responsibility for sanctions if any imposed by my commentary.
cogito ergo sumDoes that mean I don't exist?
Cogitas ergo es
all respect due to Descartes
I don't think anyone is irritated. Anyone irritated? No? OK. Carry on.
Whose logic was fairly obviously flawed.
Wrong again.
Just because some people believe he exists doesn't mean that he actually does.
In which language?
Or it could be "I am" and nothing whatsoever to do with "god".When you calm youself, when you reach into the self, when you find internal courage, inspiration and determination this is an expression of the I am.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; June 1st, 2013 at 11:12 AM.
ain't nobody's perfectWhose logic was fairly obviously flawed.
(present company excluded)
The answer is of course, He did !I watch a show "Does god create the universe? " by Stephen Hawking, i watch the full show but question remain unanswered. Tell me, what you think about it, what really science says.
Science proves God existense: (watch the whole video)
Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails - YouTube
Actually it's undeniable fact.
This is an intersting video too:
Take your time
If that were true, you would be able to point to the peer-reviewed paper rather than some yootube video (which I can't watch).
Actually, I deny it. I will use exactly the same amount of evidence: "".Actually it's undeniable fact.
False.
Two lies in that heading.Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails - YouTube
Only if you believe the lies in the video.Actually it's undeniable fact.
Correct.This is an intersting video too:
Misrepresentation is always interesting.
as/re
Do you now relegate your "GOD" to pronoun?He
...........
You may not say the name of "GOD".
ok,
difficult?
work your wording around that little obstacle
Someone above said, "God exists outside the boundaries of reality". I agree with this.
Anything outside the boundaries of reality is said to be unreal.
Anything unreal is said to not exist
Therefore God does not exist.
Anything is possible...if you're willing to believe anything.The answer is of course, He did !
Science proves God existense: (watch the whole video)
(Hooey video)
Actually it's undeniable fact.
This is an intersting video too:
(More hooey)
Take your time
It says in the first video the universe has to be designed, what if if designed itself, not just by one superior being.
...let me stop you right there. Anyone who says "has to" or "must be" or "is always" or "will never" is talking out of their butt 90% of the time. These terms apply to very few things in science outside mathematics.
They say if you can use them all in one sentence, without appearing full of bottom fodder yourself, then you are a master of preserving the truth and being generous with the bull.Anyone who says "has to" or "must be" or "is always" or "will never" is talking out of their butt 90% of the time.
I can't believe either Flick that the guy in the video said "The universe had to be designed".
If you are a real scientist, you will not say no. Instead you will say "Show me proof".
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Seems you don't know much about science. Real scientists never say "Show me proof"... they say, "show me evidence." Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Science does not presume anything and everything imaginable exists until it is proven otherwise.
Otherwise I could say that I am god and you would be forced to prove me wrong.
Proof of what? Non-existence?
Correct.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But absence of evidence when there should be evidence aplenty is pretty damning.
You're misunderstanding what I wrote.Seems you don't know much about science. Real scientists never say "Show me proof"... they say, "show me evidence." Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Science does not presume anything and everything imaginable exists until it is proven otherwise.
Otherwise I could say that I am god and you would be forced to prove me wrong.
If an answer is not yet there, we cannot simply say "Whelp, looks like the answer will never be found."
There are countless times in history when we had an explanation for something, and then a newer science came around and we revised our theories.
We do not have to say everything imaginable exists, but we can't rule it out until something proves it does not.
The reason I say it will never be answered is because it is based on belief. So far every witness account has been dismissible. Is it presumptuous for me to say it will NEVER be answered? Maybe, but in all the millennium that people have claimed the existence of god, and considering the origins of the myth in any culture, the origins begin with men telling stories. Every shred of evidence based on phenomenon of nature have been scientifically explained. All so called miracles have had reasonable alternate explanations offered. All other evidence is feeling based and feelings are rarely based on rational interpretations of reality. Feelings are more often than not triggered by desire.You're misunderstanding what I wrote.Seems you don't know much about science. Real scientists never say "Show me proof"... they say, "show me evidence." Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Science does not presume anything and everything imaginable exists until it is proven otherwise.
Otherwise I could say that I am god and you would be forced to prove me wrong.
If an answer is not yet there, we cannot simply say "Whelp, looks like the answer will never be found."
There are countless times in history when we had an explanation for something, and then a newer science came around and we revised our theories.
We do not have to say everything imaginable exists, but we can't rule it out until something proves it does not.
So yes I presume based on the pattern of events showing that evidences after evidences of a so called god get debunked that it is highly unlikely any verifiable evidence in favor of the existence of a god will ever be obtained or discovered.
But like you said, lack of evidence is not evidence for lack of existence, but it takes enormous leaps of logic to assume that one does exist in absence of evidence. And one that would exist and have such little detectible effect on us is hardly relevant enough to reality to even consider, let alone worship.
I completely share your views. I don't believe people should be devoting their life to blind faith.The reason I say it will never be answered is because it is based on belief. So far every witness account has been dismissible. Is it presumptuous for me to say it will NEVER be answered? Maybe, but in all the millennium that people have claimed the existence of god, and considering the origins of the myth in any culture, the origins begin with men telling stories. Every shred of evidence based on phenomenon of nature have been scientifically explained. All so called miracles have had reasonable alternate explanations offered. All other evidence is feeling based and feelings are rarely based on rational interpretations of reality. Feelings are more often than not triggered by desire.You're misunderstanding what I wrote.Seems you don't know much about science. Real scientists never say "Show me proof"... they say, "show me evidence." Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Science does not presume anything and everything imaginable exists until it is proven otherwise.
Otherwise I could say that I am god and you would be forced to prove me wrong.
If an answer is not yet there, we cannot simply say "Whelp, looks like the answer will never be found."
There are countless times in history when we had an explanation for something, and then a newer science came around and we revised our theories.
We do not have to say everything imaginable exists, but we can't rule it out until something proves it does not.
So yes I presume based on the pattern of events showing that evidences after evidences of a so called god get debunked that it is highly unlikely any verifiable evidence in favor of the existence of a god will ever be obtained or discovered.
But like you said, lack of evidence is not evidence for lack of existence, but it takes enormous leaps of logic to assume that one does exist in absence of evidence. And one that would exist and have such little detectible effect on us is hardly relevant enough to reality to even consider, let alone worship.
However, that is the difference between being an athiest and an agnostic.
Until we have scientific proof of every single phenomenon (which, I believe is out there. We just have not found it yet) I will remain skeptic.
Which also forces me to accept that if some deity came down from the heavens and he turned out to be "god", I would have to believe that.
Here is my perspective: You're saying, "Anything is possible."
There is not just a lack of evidence but an overwhelming mass of evidence that contradicts the notion of Intelligent Creation or design.
So saying that it may change would also require the overturning of a great deal of evidence, as well. It is not merely a matter of providing evidence.
Is it possible? Maybe- but it would be irrational to put too much consideration into such remote probabilities.
It may say that, but there is no reason to believe it to be true.
What word or words would you use for its appearance Strange, big bang?
Did God create the universe may as well be said the other way round. Did the universe create God, it might be more believable it exists now
I would use "I don't know". As a pragmatic engineer, I don't really see a problem with the anthropic principle: if the universe were not the way it is then we wouldn't be here to comment on it. If it were different, then there might be different beings commenting on it. However, there are suggestions that there could be multiple universes, we just happen to be in the one that looks like this. There are even suggestions that the spawning of universes involves some sort of "evolution" which will tend to produce universes like this one. It has also been shown that the "fine tuning" argument may not hold: yes, you can change one value and things like atoms will no longer form, but you can tweak other values and get back to a state where they will. So there may be an infinite continuum of values that can produce a universe like ours. Not so improbable after all.
Or maybe man invented god(s). That is certainly what we think now about the Greek, Roman and Norse gods. Why treat other gods any differently.Did God create the universe may as well be said the other way round. Did the universe create God, it might be more believable it exists now
I don't know who originally said it, but I often find my self repeating, "When you understand why you don't believe in Thor or Zeus or Neptune, then you will understand why I don't believe in your God."
most people miss the point that in all the stories, the old gods were purely nature gods, and the stories were all metaphor
example, if you know that thor hates the proud ones, giants and hill trolls, you know where not to be when thor comes around
If you will not think in mataphor, the stories are wasted on you.
Stick with maths and science.
.....................
alternately phrased:
"GOD" created man in "god's" own image.
Man, completely incapable of comprehending "GOD", created gods in man's own image.
But I bet you have your own Idea, I don't know either.
Who ever said it, was he/she speaking from a defensive position? To say "your God" means you have your own God in mind, are you sure it wasn't "a God?"
You are misrepresenting Christian Theology. First God does love me, just as he loves you. That is correct theology. However, each of us is free to reject that love.You state this assertion as fact even though you admit that it is a faithful belief.
Also known as Schizophrenia...
The same Holy Bible that instructs the Chosen People to stone children to death for disobedience and to stone women to death for adultery.
N.T.: To cut off your own hands, gouge out your own eyes to prevent sinful thoughts(-- Hey, you notice how there never are any "good Christian folk" who actually DO this?)
Basic cop out for: Overwhelming lack of evidence, overwhelming contradictory evidence to this primitive superstition, lack of any intelligent design, lack of Moral Nature (Example; in the natural world, animals suffer horribly in many situations; removing them from the breeding pool. This supposed source of Morality exercises zero morality in regards to all living things).
In other words, Blind Faith based on a desire to feel close to an Almighty Creator that wuvs you.
Secondly, it is a mistake to take part of the Bible in isolation and then "judge God".
Thirdly, mainstream religious beliefs have nothing to do with schizophrenia.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that God would want a person to know Him and not just know that He exists.
Otherwise, false perceptions about the nature of God would persist.
Many if not all atheists have a false perception of the nature of God.
Actually it would be more accurate (and honest) to say that everyone has a false perception about the "nature of god".
Something that cannot be shown to exist cannot have a nature that anyone can perceive.
But would that only be true of "old gods"?
I have to say this regarding my attempt at understanding religion; there is one kind of religion I sort of get.
Sun worship religions aren't exactly at the forefront of popular culture, but they always made a bit of sense to me. We live our lives based on the power of the Sun. It grows our crops, it gave us light before we had fire, it determines when we wake and when we sleep. People who thought the giant flaming ball in the sky was a God make a lot more sense to me than people who think God is some intangible force or an old man in the clouds.
In a way, you could argue that the Sun was responsible for the creation of life on Earth. You could even toy with the notion that the Sun was responsible for the creation of Earth. It was the from the orbiting debris around the Sun that Earth coalesced. Maybe early Sun worshippers were scientists who didn't realize it yet.
ATTK likes this. I often wondered how to phrase the question "at what stage of someone's life is an act considered scientific."In a way, you could argue that the Sun was responsible for the creation of life on Earth. You could even toy with the notion that the Sun was responsible for the creation of Earth. It was the from the orbiting debris around the Sun that Earth coalesced. Maybe early Sun worshippers were scientists who didn't realize it yet.
Now that you've phrased it, what do you mean by it?I often wondered how to phrase the question "at what stage of someone's life is an act considered scientific."
I'll try, as I say I've struggled trying to say what I mean but all right I'll try. What's the first scientific experiment you ever performed?
I think you don’t need to believe in the existence of multiple gods if you believe in one god who created everything. Those other gods are open to redundancy because their no longer required to explain the origin of the universe. It’s an extra step removed.
But most theists today will probably say it’s foolish to believe in multiple gods, because there’s no evidence. But then they may turn and argue that their has to be at least one god because they regard the universe itself as the prime evidence of at least one creator.
However, Carl Sagan makes a good point about god/s and the origin of the universe. Was about to paraphrase him, but why not just share the clip as it’s short...
[Warning: v. retro!]
Sagan: "Why not save a step?" - YouTube
Basically, no need for a god to explain away the origin of the universe, because all your doing is adding “that extra step”.
Those people were half right. Until the past few hundred year, in other words the vast majority of Abrahamic religions time, those "stories" were taken as completely accurate depictions of what happened--and often used in various interpretive writings by prominent Jewish, Muslim and Christian religious leaders and philosophers. Those that think they were intended as metaphors are ignoring both the context and history of their faiths.
The "metaphor" excuse took hold when stronger practice of the scientific method showed evidence that put many ancient beliefs into doubt.
Yes Paramvir there is a god. My standard answer is....obey the instructions I'm about to reveal to you. You will immediately feel better about many beliefs. For the following generic belief declaration sheet, just fill in the blank with the name of the god you are wondering about. It's all very easy and straight forward and you will feel quite satisfied once completed. (Thank you to Virginia O'Hanlon and Francis Church).
Friends, those who insist that _________ does not exist are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, there is a ________. It exists as certainly as thoughts and ideas and imagination exist. Alas! How dreary would the world be if there was no ________. It would be as dreary as if there were no believers. There would be no childlike faith, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which believers fill the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in ________! You might as well not believe in fairies. If you do not witness a Griffin fly or a dragon breathe fire, what would that prove? The things that are most real are those which we cannot see. Not seeing a ________ is no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in this world.
There is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view the beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? In all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No _________??? It lives and it lives forever. A 1000 years from now or 10,000 years from now, _______ will continue to make glad the hearts of believers.
________ is real. I will fight that to the death. If you're wondering why I care.....just consider me a lover of all things uncertain... an apparition... a believer.
Oh- Mad Libs! Can I try one?
Hooray!
Zin has proved chickens exist.
Now I can rest easy.
The form is generic and is very compatible to all beliefs and best of all, it didn't cost you a cent. Where can you find something like that in this world?Oh- Mad Libs! Can I try one?
See how simple life can be if you worry about shitHooray!
Zin has proved chickens exist.
Now I can rest easy.
Oh no! Not "Will I am"
Seriously, then you are god. As "you are"
Oh wait so am I. This is confusing.
Who's not "I am" .
Cosmos you saidAnd.So you think there is proof out there for the Umbanumba (it's a fishcatbird, all in one) great always thought it existed. And the Binjo (it's a horsedogshark, all in one, well at least my imagination tells me so)Why! It could be an advanced alien, fooling you into thinking that. Are you sure sceptical is what you are, given you are willing to accept any old alien as god.
~ I think that many cultures have had a 'Sun' God. The Egyptians and others called it Ra.I have to say this regarding my attempt at understanding religion; there is one kind of religion I sort of get.
Sun worship religions aren't exactly at the forefront of popular culture, but they always made a bit of sense to me. We live our lives based on the power of the Sun. It grows our crops, it gave us light before we had fire, it determines when we wake and when we sleep. People who thought the giant flaming ball in the sky was a God make a lot more sense to me than people who think God is some intangible force or an old man in the clouds.
In a way, you could argue that the Sun was responsible for the creation of life on Earth. You could even toy with the notion that the Sun was responsible for the creation of Earth. It was the from the orbiting debris around the Sun that Earth coalesced. Maybe early Sun worshippers were scientists who didn't realize it yet.
This Ra word pops up a bit around the world.. and I will remain the atheist.
But I like this so much I have cut and pasted it.. I must be able to annoy someone with this...
| « Abiogenesis - theology doesn't work either. | Volcanoes vs young earthers » |
| Tags for this Thread |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
