Do you believe in GOD?

[Typhus]

You don't care yet you care enough to insult someone who has done you no harm?

You're too old to act this way.

[Nlwt]

Long story short, no, I do not. Never really have, most likely never will.

[Creed Bratton]

You don't care yet you care enough to insult someone who has done you no harm?

You're too old to act this way.

And you're too old to perceive observations as insults. I genuinely think that you lack imagination and that your ideas are limited because of that. And that's not gonna change unless you provide me with some evidence to the contrary.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Because all evidence shows the universe began to exist, therefore making it require a cause..

 

If it requires a cause, and the universe couldn't cause itself, the cause must be external.

What makes you think that the universe couldn't cause itself? We don't know what our universe looked like before the big bang. There's a theory that suggests that our universe used to expand and shrink [big crunch] until it reached the attributes that it has now which will allow it to expand indefinitely. Who knows how many times the big bang happened. This universe could have existed in another state before our big bang. And we don't know if it's the only universe, if it did have a cause or if it just is. So that doesn't really prove anything.

 

Because time was created at the big bang.

 

Before the BB in the singularity time did not exist, therefore cause and effect could not occur.

 

If cause and effect cannot work, how could the singularity have caused itself? It would require an external force.

[Typhus]

You don't care yet you care enough to insult someone who has done you no harm?

You're too old to act this way.

And you're too old to perceive observations as insults.

They were not observations, though. They were glib, unwarranted slurs against myself which sullied a post of yours which was actually well formed and articulate.

I want to respond to you, I really do, but do you really expect me to overlook how you've been treating me? We're both adults and we're both above trading insults with one another on the internet, it's embarrassing. Especially for a man like you, whose intellect I have always admired.

[Bartleby]

 

Can't you see that god is just a complication? Like multiplying with 1. You can just remove him from the equation and say that universe (or multiverse) had always existed and it doesn't have a cause. It simply is. Why do you need the idea of god when following your own logic he doesn't have to exist? Not to mention that we don't have any evidence to support god's existence. It's pointless to believe in god.

 

What do you gain in life from believing in god that you couldn't gain in some other way?

Because all evidence shows the universe began to exist, therefore making it require a cause..

 

If it requires a cause, and the universe couldn't cause itself, the cause must be external.

Show us the evidence you speak of, please. Unless you can do better than just stating your personal conclusion, your point about the cause having to be external is merely an argument from ignorance with a teleological argument on top of it (comparing cars to natural phenomena). We simply have no data about anything existing outside our universe and what it could be like, so to add another value ("it must be eternal") to that to try and justify it is only bootstrapping a speculative idea onto another one, and that does not a good argument make. To continue GTAvanja's mathematical approach to the topic, it's like adding multiple zeros together to try and reach one.

 

So far all it seems you've been able to provide is "well, it just makes the most sense to me". Again, if you're so sure about this, give us a reason to believe you.

 

EDIT:

 

 

Because time was created at the big bang.

 

Before the BB in the singularity time did not exist, therefore cause and effect could not occur.

 

If cause and effect cannot work, how could the singularity have caused itself? It would require an external force.

This is self-refuting. If we agree that cause and effect did not necessarily exist, then we can entertain the possibility that it existed through some other means (or no means at all, since everything would be fair game from a speculative standpoint). You cannot say in one sentence that since time did not exist, cause and effect could not occur, then in the next sentence say that cause and effect was necessary for something to occur. This is not internally consistent. Edited July 8, 2013 by Bartleby

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Show us the evidence you speak of, please. Unless you can do better than just stating your personal conclusion, your point about the cause having to be external is merely an argument from ignorance with a teleological argument on top of it (comparing cars to natural phenomena). We simply have no data about anything existing outside our universe and what it could be like, so to add another value ("it must be eternal") to that to try and justify it is only bootstrapping a speculative idea onto another one, and that does not a good argument make. To continue GTAvanja's mathematical approach to the topic, it's like adding multiple zeros together to try and reach one.

 

So far all it seems you've been able to provide is "well, it just makes the most sense to me". Again, if you're so sure about this, give us a reason to believe you.

 

The big bang, thermodynamics, the expansion of space.. there are multiple things showing the universe had a definite beginning point..

 

 

 

 

 

Because time was created at the big bang.

 

Before the BB in the singularity time did not exist, therefore cause and effect could not occur.

 

If cause and effect cannot work, how could the singularity have caused itself? It would require an external force.

This is self-refuting. If we agree that cause and effect did not necessarily exist, then we can entertain the possibility that it existed through some other means (or no means at all, since everything would be fair game from a speculative standpoint). You cannot say in one sentence that since time did not exist, cause and effect could not occur, then in the next sentence say that cause and effect was necessary for something to occur. This is not internally consistent.

 

Cause and effect could not exist within the universe (by universe I mean our reality, not ALL that exists) because the singularity was beyond time, therefore a cause outside the universe must logically exist. I'm not saying there was no cause and effect period, just no cause and effect occurring within the singularity to cause itself since it was outside time.

[Bartleby]

 

The big bang, thermodynamics, the expansion of space.. there are multiple things showing the universe had a definite beginning point..

That was not what you were arguing. You were claiming that you had evidence for an eternal creator of the universe, and none of those ideas address the question. These are explanations for this universe's behavior, and they do not inform us about anything (if anything is) beyond this universe, nor do they inform us about any potential cause.

 

 

Cause and effect could not exist within the universe (by universe I mean our reality, not ALL that exists) because the singularity was beyond time, therefore a cause outside the universe must logically exist. I'm not saying there was no cause and effect period, just no cause and effect occurring within the singularity to cause itself since it was outside time.

We can only measure things given our working understanding of our own universe's behavior (or our own reality's behavior, if you'd prefer to use that term). Cause and effect is a property of this particular universe/reality, and that is all we can honestly say.We have no idea if this could possibly give us any insight to what could be outside of it, so extrapolation from this is really just pure unfounded conjecture. Hence I say you may very well be right, but then so could any other theist. What matters is that we're left with no reason to believe you over anyone else.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

The big bang, thermodynamics, the expansion of space.. there are multiple things showing the universe had a definite beginning point..

That was not what you were arguing. You were claiming that you had evidence for an eternal creator of the universe, and none of those ideas address the question. These are explanations for this universe's behavior, and they do not inform us about anything (if anything is) beyond this universe, nor do they inform us about any potential cause.

 

Please quote me where I claimed to have evidence of an eternal external creator of the universe.. You're creating a strawman argument.. I explained this about two posts up.

 

I said everything that begins to exist requires a cause. This is well known, I don't think anyone's arguing that- I claimed the universe itself shows evidence to having a definite beginning point; it began to exist therefore requires a cause.

 

I'm not sure how so many people are having such a hard time understanding this..

[Bartleby]

 

The big bang, thermodynamics, the expansion of space.. there are multiple things showing the universe had a definite beginning point..

That was not what you were arguing. You were claiming that you had evidence for an eternal creator of the universe, and none of those ideas address the question. These are explanations for this universe's behavior, and they do not inform us about anything (if anything is) beyond this universe, nor do they inform us about any potential cause.

 

Please quote me where I claimed to have evidence of an eternal external creator of the universe.. You're creating a strawman argument.. I explained this about two posts up.

 

I said everything that begins to exist requires a cause. This is well known, I don't think anyone's arguing that- I claimed the universe itself shows evidence to having a definite beginning point; it began to exist therefore requires a cause.

 

I'm not sure how so many people are having such a hard time understanding this..

Creating a straw man? Far from it:

 

 

An eternal ultimate cause is the only logical explanation to existence.. even if there are multiverses, logically it would all come down to one ultimate cause in the end. An endless loop of universes alone would never answer anything.

 

You then went on to insist that a concious, sentient being had to have created this universe, and your reasoning was thus:

 

 

Well of course, because the foundation of our reality has been shown to be consciousness, not physical matter.

 

When pressed for evidence, here is what you said:

 

 

The evidence is already there. We've been doing the double slit experiment for a century or so now and the results are always the same, an observer causes matter to collapse from a wave of superposition into a definite state.

When other people are keeping better track than you are of your argument, I think it might be time to take a step back and have another look at the ideas you're attempting to convey.

 

And the reason we don't necessarily accept that is because you haven't demonstrated how the properties and behavior of our reality could possibly relate to anything outside of it.

[GrandMaster Smith]

An eternal ultimate cause is the only logical explanation to our existence. Is our existence actually logical? Who knows. But it's best to first pursue logical theories rather than illogical ones, obviously.

 

 

I safely assume the ultimate cause is awareness/consciousness (not a physical conscious being) because the very foundation of our reality is consciousness not matter; and the evidence for that is the double slit experiment.

 

 

 

FYI you're not keeping very good track of my arguments, you're mixing things up rather badly..

[Bartleby]

 

An eternal ultimate cause is the only logical explanation to our existence. Is our existence actually logical? Who knows. But it's best to first pursue logical theories rather than illogical ones, obviously.

 

 

I safely assume the ultimate cause is awareness/consciousness (not a physical conscious being) because the very foundation of our reality is consciousness not matter; and the evidence for that is the double slit experiment.

 

 

 

FYI you're not keeping very good track of my arguments, you're mixing things up rather badly..

So we can now agree then that you were indeed talking about this universe needing an eternal external creator? If you find the word 'creator' too loaded and prefer to use the term 'cause', it makes no difference to what I have been saying.

 

Here's the problem: you are laying these claims on the table and yet you don't pay any mind to providing justification for these claims. For instance, you're saying the foundation of our reality is consciousness and not matter: Why do you believe that? If you're talking about our personal subjectivity, I find that very reasonable. If you're talking about the actual world outside of our brains being constructed by consciousness, that's a completely different matter. What data and/or reasoning has led you to this conclusion? And by the way, sivispacem already addressed why the double slit experiment is not evidence for anything regarding consciousness being the basis for our reality. You have thus far failed to relate this experiment to your argument.

 

And if you don't find my assessment of your argument accurate, please correct me because if this isn't what you're trying to argue then I'm afraid I will need you to explain it to me in a much clearer fashion.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Bartleby

[Killerdude]

Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, no time, no things, no existence. So, how does god exist before existence itself? It's impossible.

[IslaVista]

It's very, very unlikely for there to be a God. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. See as how the Universe is made its actually possible to make another Universe. Obviously that requires a mass ton of resources and technology that we're not even coming close to having. At this time though, we can create life from stem cells. The ability to develop and grow a human is almost right around the corner.

 

The possibly of the Christian, Islamic, and Judaism God being a reality is not true. Proof? Christianity believes that the Bible is the word of God. Okay..so you're telling me that God had no idea the world was millions of years old and round? Seems to me like everything described in the Bible is within a 10 mile radius of the writer.

 

Fascinating point here though. Astrophysicists actually created a outside view map of the universe. When given a look, it oddly shows resemblance to the structure of a brain cell. Since there's no size limit to how small matter can be in the Universe it could be possible that our Universe is a brain cell.

[IslaVista]

Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, no time, no things, no existence. So, how does god exist before existence itself? It's impossible.

That is actually not true. There was something before the Big Bang. The Big Bang acted the same as when a Star explodes, the theory of no existence before the BB is highly rejected in the scientific community. You may want to look up Multiverse and Parallel Universe theories.

[Killerdude]

Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, no time, no things, no existence. So, how does god exist before existence itself? It's impossible.

That is actually not true. There was something before the Big Bang. The Big Bang acted the same as when a Star explodes, the theory of no existence before the BB is highly rejected in the scientific community. You may want to look up Multiverse and Parallel Universe theories.

I guess I haven't read up on the Big Bang in a while, gonna have to edumacate myself.

 

 

 

 

[El Dildo]

 

how does god exist before existence itself?

because it's god.

it's basically the 'Superman' argument. god is Superman. Superman can do anything and no one can question his ability. he's just Superman.

 

god is god, which means god can do anything, which means it's basically magic.

and anyone who knows anything about logic knows this: an argument which attempts to explain everything (AKA "god") ultimately explains nothing at all.

 

this is why religious conjecture isn't allowed at the table of science and medicine.

it's useless.

 

"how??"

"god did it!!"

"oh, ok"

 

that gets us nowhere. that's useless.

what a big bunch of nothing...

Edited July 8, 2013 by El_Diablo

[Ferocious Banger]

 

That's not a fair comparison. There's a great amount of evidence for electricity. However, the only proof for the existence of a god is some ancient scripture as far as i know, which clearly isn't enough.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"  - Carl Sagan

As stated in my previous post, electricity can only be observed. It can't be seen

 

 

God can only be observed; not "seen ".

Yeah, Electricity can't be seen. Makes sense.

 

Let me ask someone else... wouldn't you agree, Lightning Strike?

Are you supporting this electricity BS?

and like sivispacem said, It indeed can be seen.

Now, I never saw God with with my eyes

I never heard God.

I never smelled God.

I never tasted God.

I never touched God.

How can I know it exists then, believing in the Bible?

Don't believe in the Bible then. If it's so easily comprehensible and definable, it ceases being God.

 

Plus you can feel the presence, maybe even see it if you take your time and actually follow what I had written.

 

A guy who knows won't run around asking for "proof ".

 

I don't want to be the center of this because none of us is going to change. I know God; i have felt it.

 

Detach yourself from the six senses, and then talk. :-)

 

You probably will refute this will, but that's fine. You will not know until you take your time and maybe follow the philosophies of Ramana Maharishi or Swami Vivekananda. :-)

 

Edit: @Lightning Strike

 

Maybe it is for you. I am no religious fanatic either. I started believing in God after some starling miracles that happened in mt personal life. Is that hard for you to comprehend?

 

@Narrow

 

I am not "taking pride" in anything. I am not biased and found God. You are a bit based as far as I can see. Please, I request you to follow what I have and tell me what your results are. If you can't find God even at that spiritual state..yeah you will.

 

Spiritual intelligence is different from materialistic intelligence, IMO.

 

..And no, I am not "f*cked up". It's just that I don't run around saying either of this:

 

1) OMG God exists

2) OMG God doesn't exist.

 

It's people's wish to believe in what they believe in.

 

 

"Imaginary friend"

 

Heh..it is hard to explain, man. In order to "win" this debate, you need to have been on both sides of the fence; I have.

 

You, my friend, have very little understanding of God. Unless you know what I am talking about, there is no point in debating further. I know exactly why and what you are talking of. But unlike you, I actually decided to test whether God is true or not. I have seen it in action. I have felt the presence. You won't. You won't.

 

It is pretty much a waste of time debating this. I know what I am talking about you won't. Your materialistic intelligence may or may not be superior to that of mine, but my spiritual intelligence sure is superior to that of yours.

 

God is absolute; everything else is relative.

 

I am signing off..

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Why should I believe you over an illiterate, possibly schizophrenic, French peasant girl?

[Ferocious Banger]

 

Why should I believe you over an illiterate, possibly schizophrenic, French peasant girl?

It's your damn wish, mate. I am not one of those "shovers".

 

----------

I find it the fact that some of the atheists here are name-calling others and calling them 'unintelligent'. It's good that you don't believe in God. I am fine with it. But juvenile wordings are just not what a person who calls others 'unintelligent' and 'pathetic' use. Please grow up.

 

Respect others opinions if they aren't being shoved down your throat(s). Agree to disagree and move on.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Why should I believe you over an illiterate, possibly schizophrenic, French peasant girl?

It's your damn wish, mate. I am not one of those "shovers".

 

----------

I find it the fact that some of the atheists here are name-calling others and calling them 'unintelligent'. It's good that you don't believe in God. I am fine with it. But juvenile wordings are just not what a person who calls others 'unintelligent' and 'pathetic' use. Please grow up.

 

Respect others opinions if they aren't being shoved down your throat(s). Agree to disagree and move on.

Why should I respect your opinion though? You give no proof to your claims. At least the peasant girl commanded armies.

[sivispacem]

 

Anything that begins to exist requires a cause, whether it's a car, a star, the moon or the universe, if there was a specific point in time that it began to exist, it requires a cause.

 

On the other hand if something is eternal, meaning having no end nor beginning, obviously it would not and could not require a cause because it has always existed.

Exactly as I said- everything requires a cause except God, who is miraculously eternal despite the fact nothing else empirical or capable of being experienced is. Yep, that's really rational.

 

 

Because time was created at the big bang.

There you go again, butchering physics to advance your cause.

 

Time was not created at the big bang. Time is not material; it cannot be created or destroyed. It's a concept based on empirical measurement of the world. The universe as we know it can be related to the concept of time- or more accurately the concept of times is derived from the universe- but time is not a creation. There's nothing physical there to create. "Time" is simply a conceptual, relative unit of measurement. Therefore, your entire basic concept (time did not exist before the big bang, therefore nothing did) is fundamentally incorrect. Time may or may not have existed before the big bang; but given that we have no experience of the universe pre-big-bang as our own assessment of time starts only at this point, no statement of authority can be made on the matter. Therefore, making a statement of authority is fallacious and misleading.

 

 

Please quote me where I claimed to have evidence of an eternal external creator of the universe

You've not provided any actual evidence of one, but your repeated claims that logically speaking an eternal, external, sentient ultimate creator must exist have to be derived from something you feel constitutes evidence of it's existence. Else why would you be so rabid in your attacks on logic and empiricism, and so brutal in your unnecessary butchering of physics, both conventional and quantum? I don't really think it constitutes a straw man to say that you believe you have evidence of a eternal, external, sentient ultimate creator. Isn't that what your whole argument is about?

 

 

my spiritual intelligence sure is superior to that of yours.

It's this kind of egomaniacal, unwarranted superiority which gives religious believers, particularly those who subscribe to the Abrahamic religions, such a bad name.

[Ferocious Banger]

 

It's this kind of egomaniacal, unwarranted superiority which gives religious believers, particularly those who subscribe to the Abrahamic religions, such a bad name.

 

I apologize if I came across as one. I've been polite enough all along. But when someone resents to name-calling, this happens.

 

Anyway, sorry if I offended anyone. I believe in God. Some of you don't; that is fine by me.

 

 

[DEALUX]

I'd just like to point out that one can be religious but not adhere to religious institutions and their conventions. and that separating from organized religions on certain aspects leads to new religions being formed that believe they are honoring God's will in the RIGHT way. Same God, different interpretation. The difference between Protestants and Catholics.

 

And the idea that there is an issue with him because he wishes to believe in a higher power is insulting.

Except that she still calls herself a Catholic from what I could gather from her posts. I would personally call myself a Christian instead, but I still think it's hypocritical to cherry pick the good parts of a religion.

 

Her. I said maybe. She said she was happy as a result of practicing her religion and that makes me think there might have been a gap before which she filled with religion. Many people say that they have a need to believe in something more powerful than them and many other people don't have that need. I think that's strange and I know there are plenty of reasons to believe, I'm not sure if there are any reasonable ones to believe in a personal god though.

[Creed Bratton]

 

We're both adults

Then stop acting like a child. I know that I can be a short tempered asshole when it comes to these things. And I'm OK with that because it makes me feel good to say what I really mean.

 

@ GrandMaster Smith: So, now you claim to know when the time was created. Let me say that again.

 

When the time was created.

 

You don't see anything absurd about that statement? How can the concept which gives us the measurement of when be created at the specific time if it didn't already exist? I, for example, don't have a f*ckin' clue what time actually is or why it always seems to move forward. Do you? Please share if you do.

Edited July 8, 2013 by GTAvanja

[IslaVista]

We're both adults

Then stop acting like a child. I know that I can be a short tempered asshole when it comes to these things. And I'm OK with that because it makes me feel good to say what I really mean.

 

@ GrandMaster Smith: So, now you claim to know when the time was created. Let me say that again.

 

When the time was created.

 

You don't see anything absurd about that statement? How can the concept which gives us the measurement of when be created at the specific time if it didn't already exist? I, for example, don't have a f*ckin' clue what time actually is or why it always seems to move forward. Do you? Please share if you do.

Time doesn't exist. It was made up by man as a forum of measurement. It's the same as micrometers to light years. They don't actually exist. If you research more about the Universe you'd be surprised to find out that time can actually be bent and changed. Therefore the saying that "When time was created" is false because there is no set time and no set existence of time.

[Typhus]

 

We're both adults

Then stop acting like a child.

Your frankness is indeed a trait worthy of praise.

But I am afraid that you have once again groundlessly insulted me. I hope you realise that we could have happily discussed your initial post if you had simply behaved in a civil manner to begin with.

 

Though, I must confess to some curiosity as to where in our correspondence I have acted like a child. You do understand why I'm reluctant to join a debate in which your principal point was bogged down with personal insults? I am not asking you to alter your blunt manner of discussing these issues, I am merely asking to be extended the bare minimum of respect and civility.

[DEALUX]

 

Time doesn't exist. It was made up by man as a forum of measurement. It's the same as micrometers to light years. They don't actually exist. If you research more about the Universe you'd be surprised to find out that time can actually be bent and changed. Therefore the saying that "When time was created" is false because there is no set time and no set existence of time.

I don't know anyone that has been able to prove that time doesn't exist, so you must be the first one. Have they awarded you your Nobel prize yet?

 

From what I understand, time didn't exist before the Big Bang because there was no motion. I think it makes sense to say that since (truly) nothing is happening then there is no time.

[Swoorup]

I don't believe the divine powers and good beings of god. There might be god, but I doubt that he cares for us, like any religion would tell you. To me, god is a form of a being that might have dominated us a long time ago.

 

Or either people invented God, to keep people away from doing bad things.

[sivispacem]

Time doesn't exist. It was made up by man as a forum of measurement. It's the same as micrometers to light years. They don't actually exist. If you research more about the Universe you'd be surprised to find out that time can actually be bent and changed. Therefore the saying that "When time was created" is false because there is no set time and no set existence of time.

I don't know anyone that has been able to prove that time doesn't exist, so you must be the first one. Have they awarded you your Nobel prize yet?

 

From what I understand, time didn't exist before the Big Bang because there was no motion. I think it makes sense to say that since (truly) nothing is happening then there is no time.

Time is relative to motion, yes. But whilst our current perception of time is derived from the big bang and the universe itself, we cannot definitively say whether or not time existed before the big bang because our measurement of time is derived from that point. We don't, and currently cannot, know what precluded it because our very conceptual understanding of time is a product of the finite cycle of the universe thus far. We can't apply our definition of time (that is a relatively measurement of motion in relation) because we can't experience or analyse anything to apply the metric to, but that doesn't mean nothing existed-just nothing we can currently quantify.