Do you believe in GOD?

[blitz]

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.

In spanish the term Christian isn't regarded as highly as the term 'Catholic,' hence why I called myself a Catholic. I understand there's a couple of major differences that make both religions separate, though. I suppose you could consider me a Christian.

 

I didn't have a gap at all, I simply took interest and after a while was able to build a 'relationship' with God.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

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.

 

Where did sivis address and refute what I'm saying about the double slit experiment? I would believe a professor of quantum mechanics over some internet moderator anyday when coming to science..

 

 

 

 

@ 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.

It's widely accepting Time itself (as we know it) came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Do your research, you'll see they all say it.

 

 

That does not mean that there are not other forms of time beyond what's experienced within the universe. Think of god to humans as game programmers to video game characters. The programmers are by no means limited by the time or laws of physics that they created separate from themselves in their virtual world, the creation is entirely separate from the creator.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

LOL sure I'll explain it again Sivis, maybe you'll understand it this time..?

 

..Everything requires a cause THAT BEGINS TO EXIST. If it had a definite starting point in time, it had a cause. If it's eternal, obviously it doesn't require a cause began there is no definite beginning point for it's existence.

 

But no please, be my guest and continually try to warp what I'm saying then create a strawmen argument off of it..

[The Pizza Delivery Guy]

Everything requires a cause THAT BEGINS TO EXIST. If it had a definite starting point in time, it had a cause. If it's eternal, obviously it doesn't require a cause began there is no definite beginning point for it's existence.

 

But no please, be my guest and continually try to warp what I'm saying then create a strawmen argument off of it..

That still requires you to assume that there is an eternal. Something that doesn't exist in this existence logically cannot interact with things that are in this existence.

[somedude224]

What happened to respect? Pretty sure that's disrespectful.

Seriously, how was that disrespectful? What good reason is there to respect beliefs in the first place? The rhetoric of saying 'respect my beliefs' is just a cop out used by some people who can't support or back up their beliefs effectively. Others just resort to subjective personal feelings and bad comparisons (such as Ferocious Banger).

 

If you think your beliefs are justified, back them up rather than cry about how people aren't respecting your beliefs.

Yeah? I could go on and on about everything that proves that the Christian Bible has historical accuracy, but you can google that. What I believe is frankly none of your damn business. This thread was asking a question about your beliefs. So dissing other people beliefs is completely uncalled for.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Everything requires a cause THAT BEGINS TO EXIST. If it had a definite starting point in time, it had a cause. If it's eternal, obviously it doesn't require a cause began there is no definite beginning point for it's existence.

 

But no please, be my guest and continually try to warp what I'm saying then create a strawmen argument off of it..

That still requires you to assume that there is an eternal. Something that doesn't exist in this existence logically cannot interact with things that are in this existence.

Name one reason why something that's so powerful it created all of our reality could not interact with it's own creation?

 

 

That's like saying Rockstar isn't capable of interacting within their own creation of GTA even though they exist entirely outside of it..

[sivispacem]

 

Where did sivis address and refute what I'm saying about the double slit experiment? I would believe a professor of quantum mechanics over some internet moderator anyday when coming to science..

When I addressed the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'm struggling to understand your point in relation to the double-slit experiment because I'm struggling to understand how you're relating it to your argument. It isn't the same thing as wave-front collapse; it isn't even really related to wave-front collapse; all it demonstrates is the photoelectric effect and it's role in quantum mechanics is far more a thought experiment demonstrating the differences between different schools of hypothetical thought than it is an actual demonstration of anything- well, other than wave-particle duality. The Englert–Greenberger duality relation quantifies and mathematises the double-slit experiment. So, would you kindly try and relate this back to your point, namely that conventional waves and particles alter in their behaviour when observed, and therefore must be the product of a magic creator. Because the double-slit experiment doesn't demonstrate this.

 

 

It's widely accepting Time itself (as we know it) came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

Which is basically an admissions that your statement "only an eternal creator can exist before time" is factually incorrect, no?

 

 

If it had a definite starting point in time, it had a cause.

Really? I suppose that depends on your definition of causality. And of your definition of time, given that it's relative and not tangible like you claim it is. But there's no reason that what exists before, or even during, the big bang, should follow the conventional attributes of Newtonian physics, is there? Did you miss, in your butchering of Quantum Mechanics, ideas like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I can only assume so.

 

 

Name one reason why something that's so powerful it created all of our reality could not interact with it's own creation?

You see, now you're committing a logical fallacy through presupposition. Your argument is based on a presupposition that isn't self-evident or empirically supported, but instead a product of your own opinions. You expect people to argue a point of rationality (why something powerful enough to create the universe couldn't interact with said creation), but this assumes that something powerful enough to create the universe both exists, and is capable of interaction in the most conventional sense (implying cognition). It's fine as a thought experiment but pretty poor as an argument.

 

I also like how you support every argument into the most juvenile, humanised examples possible. Surely you're demeaning the existence of the deity you so strongly believe in by comparing his actions to anything that can be experienced by the human psyche?

Edited July 9, 2013 by sivispacem

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Where did sivis address and refute what I'm saying about the double slit experiment? I would believe a professor of quantum mechanics over some internet moderator anyday when coming to science..

When I addressed the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'm struggling to understand your point in relation to the double-slit experiment because I'm struggling to understand how you're relating it to your argument. It isn't the same thing as wave-front collapse; it isn't even really related to wave-front collapse; all it demonstrates is the photoelectric effect and it's role in quantum mechanics is far more a thought experiment demonstrating the differences between different schools of hypothetical thought than it is an actual demonstration of anything- well, other than wave-particle duality. The Englert–Greenberger duality relation quantifies and mathematises the double-slit experiment. So, would you kindly try and relate this back to your point, namely that conventional waves and particles alter in their behaviour when observed, and therefore must be the product of a magic creator. Because the double-slit experiment doesn't demonstrate this.

 

The double slit experiment shows that reality, inanimate matter can 'know' when it's being observed. The very foundation of reality is based around consciousness- awareness of reality itself is what brings reality into existence.

 

When matter/reality goes completely unobserved/measured by any creature or instrument it doesn't necessarily actually exist.. physically atleast. It's a simulation on the grandest scale.

 

 

 

It's widely accepting Time itself (as we know it) came into existence at the moment of the big bang.

Which is basically an admissions that your statement "only an eternal creator can exist before time" is factually incorrect, no?

 

Sivis where did I ever even state that??

 

Not only are you putting words in my mouth to set up false arguments but you're cherry picking my quotes , only one line later says -"That does not mean that there are not other forms of time beyond what's experienced within the universe." meaning yes, other things could have and would've had to existed before the big bang. That's part of the very argument I'm making..

 

 

 

If it had a definite starting point in time, it had a cause.

Really? I suppose that depends on your definition of causality. And of your definition of time, given that it's relative and not tangible like you claim it is. But there's no reason that what exists before, or even during, the big bang, should follow the conventional attributes of Newtonian physics, is there? Did you miss, in your butchering of Quantum Mechanics, ideas like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I can only assume so.

 

There you go again making strawmen arguments, where have I ever said time is tangible.?

 

 

Name one reason why something that's so powerful it created all of our reality could not interact with it's own creation?

You see, now you're committing a logical fallacy through presupposition. Your argument is based on a presupposition that isn't self-evident or empirically supported, but instead a product of your own opinions. You expect people to argue a point of rationality (why something powerful enough to create the universe couldn't interact with said creation), but this assumes that something powerful enough to create the universe both exists, and is capable of interaction in the most conventional sense (implying cognition). It's fine as a thought experiment but pretty poor as an argument.

 

What point are you trying to make..? Of course you'd have to assume that entity exists if you're questioning it's existence.. this is just drivel, beating around the bush not addressing any main points.. why do you post such nonsense?

 

You seem more as if you want to discredit me personally rather than what I'm trying to say.

 

 

I also like how you support every argument into the most juvenile, humanised examples possible. Surely you're demeaning the existence of the deity you so strongly believe in by comparing his actions to anything that can be experienced by the human psyche?

 

The human psyche is all we know, what the hell else would you expect us to try and compare an intelligent creators mind with, of course assuming that creator also created our minds as well..

[sivispacem]

No, GMS, the double slit experiment categorically does not support the claim that inanimate matter is capable of knowing when it is observed. It's an experiment that demonstrates the dichotomy of particles that can display properties of waves under certain conditions. It is used in quantum mechanics to represent the difficulty of empirically analysing the actions of non-conventional quantum particles in relation to their surroundings, and a thought experiment regarding the observer problem. More precisely, it demonstrates that quantum entities do not behave in a conventionally probabilistic way, and that although we can assess the probability of a particular particle hitting a particular point, we cannot assess when that point will be hit-as I mentioned before, a manifestation of the uncertainty principle. Measurement using detectors on both the aperture and the backplate has effectively demonstrated the mathematical basis for the problem and refutes the idea that the wave-particle duality is an example of matter behaving differently under observation than without it- source. In fact, the implication of this is to effectively disprove wavefront collapse in relation to the double-slit experiment. What it does is demonstrate that previous methodologies for assessing the existence of wavefront collapse were technically flawed, and resulted in an objective either/or decision based on the particular method of measurement employed at the time instead of the employment of a method of measurement capable of analysing both aperture and backplate at once. As I said before, your utter butchering of quantum mechanics doesn't really help your cause.

 

Where did you state that only an infinite deity can exist before time? Well, every time you've made the claim that an external, omnipotent, sentient being must be the root cause of any system that exists in our finite timescale, for one. You dismissed regressive causality wholesale as illogical and without merit, so it is directly implicit that outside our current timescale must be an infinite deity. Then you accept that it is possible for things to exist outside of our timescale and not be this omnipotent deity. And that isn't at all contradictory to you?

 

You claimed time was tangible by limiting the only things that can possibly exist outside of it to a deity and entities that must follow Newtonian cause and effect principles. In short, you claimed that principles based on our understanding of time must be universal and capable of extrapolation to entities outside of this. Therefore, by creating the illusion of tine-based concepts being universal and objective, you entirely dismiss the relative nature of time.

 

What point am I trying to make? Well, that's abundantly clear but let me rephrase it in terms you may understand. You can't make an argument designed to demonstrate the omnipotence and relevance of a deity and therefore provide a proof for its existence whilst requiring that existence to be a precondition of your argument. It's circular reasoning because the very existence of God is not an a priori concept, and therefore trying to provide proof of existence based on capability whilst assuming the existence as a precondition of the argument is fallacious.

Edited July 9, 2013 by sivispacem

[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.

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

Why? Because it harms no one. Not even myself.

[Crewnordin]

Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations? Copied this from the Internet and this are questions believers cant answrr

[lloydo]

 

questions believers cant answrr

Don't forget, unbelievers have many questions that have no answers also. I am not goading, it's simply a fact.

 

Whether scientific evolution figures creation out fully remains to be seen, in the mean time let's all respect each other's opinions or stfu.

Edited July 9, 2013 by lloydo

[sivispacem]

 

Whether scientific evolution figures creation out fully remains to be seen, in the mean time let's all respect each other's opinions or stfu.

I agree entirely. However to do so, believers must recognise the scientific consensus around issues such as evolutionary biology, of which denial is a primary tenet of religious zeal, and also stop misusing science (example overleaf- just refer to basically any of GMS' posts) to try and quantify their views. Faith is called faith because it is subjective and personal rather than objective and universal; I and most other atheists bear no malice towards believers based on their faith but object strongly to attempt to quantify that faith by demeaning empiricism or knowledge.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

No, GMS, the double slit experiment categorically does not support the claim that inanimate matter is capable of knowing when it is observed. It's an experiment that demonstrates the dichotomy of particles that can display properties of waves under certain conditions.

 

And what conditions are those..? It's simply whether or not they're being measured.

 

Matter exists as a probability and only chooses 1 definite state the moment you decide to look where it's at. The act of observing causes the probability wave to collapse into definite matter.

 

 

 

It is used in quantum mechanics to represent the difficulty of empirically analysing the actions of non-conventional quantum particles in relation to their surroundings, and a thought experiment regarding the observer problem.  More precisely, it demonstrates that quantum entities do not behave in a conventionally probabilistic way, and that although we can assess the probability of a particular particle hitting a particular point, we cannot assess when that point will be hit-as I mentioned before, a manifestation of the uncertainty principle. Measurement using detectors on both the aperture and the backplate has effectively demonstrated the mathematical basis for the problem and refutes the idea that the wave-particle duality is an example of matter behaving differently under observation than without it- source.

 

How does this disprove anything I'm saying..? lol

 

 

Where did you state that only an infinite deity can exist before time? Well, every time you've made the claim that an external, omnipotent, sentient being must be the root cause of any system that exists in our finite timescale, for one. You dismissed regressive causality wholesale as illogical and without merit, so it is directly implicit that outside our current timescale must be an infinite deity. Then you accept that it is possible for things to exist outside of our timescale and not be this omnipotent deity. And that isn't at all contradictory to you?

 

It's really hard trying to have a discussion with someone who constantly warps what I'm trying to say.. Something must be eternal and external to make sense of existence. Whether it's sentient or not is not a necessity for this entity's existence, but it does seem likely as being awareness/consciousness itself is the basis of reality, not physical matter.

 

 

You claimed time was tangible by limiting the only things that can possibly exist outside of it to a deity and entities that must follow Newtonian cause and effect principles. In short, you claimed that principles based on our understanding of time must be universal and capable of extrapolation to entities outside of this. Therefore, by creating the illusion of tine-based concepts being universal and objective, you entirely dismiss the relative nature of time.

 

There you go again putting words in my mouth, I've said very clear earlier that our existence very well may be due to infinite universes or the like, but as I said it doesn't answer anything, it just pushes the question back further. If we're trying to determine our origins, wouldn't it be most logical to pursue those which could actually answer the question posed?

 

No where have I said nothing but a god can exist..

 

 

What point am I trying to make? Well, that's abundantly clear but let me rephrase it in terms you may understand. You can't make an argument designed to demonstrate the omnipotence and relevance of a deity and therefore provide a proof for its existence whilst requiring that existence to be a precondition of your argument. It's circular reasoning because the very existence of God is not an a priori concept, and therefore trying to provide proof of existence based on capability whilst assuming the existence as a precondition of the argument is fallacious.

 

 

Ahahah it's circular reasoning because the existence of an eternal external entity is not a logical concept? Where do you come up with this stuff?? You were just saying a few pages ago it could be rather likely that our existence is due to an uncaused cause? Your only objection was that it's sentient.

 

I'm not sure how you misrepresent my argument so badly then go off and act as if you've proven something wrong. Most your paragraphs are just mindless drivel not even really addressing any main points.

[sivispacem]

 

How does this disprove anything I'm saying..? lol

Well, it disproves this statement, for one:

 

 

Matter exists as a probability and only chooses 1 definite state the moment you decide to look where it's at. The act of observing causes the probability wave to collapse into definite matter.

I'll quote from it as you seem totally incapable of understanding it yourself.

 

 

Typically, the particle nature and the wave nature have to be observed separately; if you track the particles through a single slit, the interference pattern vanishes. However, Ralf Menzel, Dirk Puhlmann, Axel Heuer, and Wolfgang P. Schleich entangled two photons and allowed one to pass through a barrier with two slits. The entanglement enabled them to determine which opening the photon went through, but a detector on the other side still picked up an interference pattern, demonstrating light's wave- and particle-like characteristics simultaneously.

Ergo refuting the idea of wave function collapse in the double-slit experiment by proving it is possible to observe photons behaving in a way characteristic of both waves and particles simultaneously.

 

 

It's really hard trying to have a discussion with someone who constantly warps what I'm trying to say.

It's got much more to do with you contradicting yourself, really. You argued for sentience as a precondition; now you don't need it as one. Something must be "eternal and external" to make "sense" of existence? Really, must it? That sounds like an unqualified, opinion-based statement badly disguised as a fact to me. It's hard to formulate logical responses against someone who insists on changing the goal-posts of his argument every time someone refutes them, and seems incapable of a) understanding the points anyone else is making and how they affect his argument, and b) properly and logically explaining his argument in a way that actually makes sense.

 

 

I've said very clear earlier that our existence very well may be due to infinite universes or the like

Well infinite universes would preclude the existence of a god. The clue is in the name- infinite. If it was infinite regression, then it would encompass everything and anything, and therefore there would be no place for an external power. I understand why people dislike the idea of infinite universes- because it brings them no closure, and answers no questions- but preclude a primary cause it does. And you did entirely dismiss infinite regression earlier. Short memory?

 

 

No where have I said nothing but a god can exist..

Actually, by saying that at some point in time an eternal, external cause must have existed independent of all else, you sort of did. But, again, an attempt at moving the goal posts of your own argument. You've argued that such an external, eternal cause is necessary for the universe to exist (it isn't- or more accurately, you can't make statements based on necessity and probability without fully understanding the mechanics of the events you are trying to discuss, but I digress), and that this ultimate cause shows sentience through the design of the universe, which it exists externally to and yet still has power over. Sorry, but that's an argument which requires a time at which nothing other than your sentient, eternal, omnipotent external cause existed. Trying to deny this is completely bizarre.

 

 

Ahahah it's circular reasoning because the existence of an eternal external entity is not a logical concept? Where do you come up with this stuff?

That's the worst job I've ever seen of anyone attempting to distil another person's argument. I don't know whether you just have issues comprehending things or whether you're being deliberately obfuscatory and contrary, but that's nothing like the argument I was making. Try again. I'll give you a little hint- it's circular reasoning because your argument tries to "prove" something which is a precondition of it. That's a logical fallacy.

[Eminence E.]

Well, I'm bumping this thread.

For a reason, my views about God has changed. I now do believe in him. I don't know why, makes me feel safer...

[GTA3Rockstar]

Well, I'm bumping this thread.

For a reason, my views about God has changed. I now do believe in him. I don't know why, makes me feel safer...

 

No harm no foul in believing.

[Der Süden]

I'm not religious. I just believe that something created the universe. This whole thing, including us humans, can not be an accident imo.

[..GhosT]

Nah, all the stories back then sound like someoe was heavily LSD overdosed when he wrote that bible storys. Seriously.. changing water to wine, splitting water and sh*t. Heaven/Hell... thats all just unrealistic crap like santa, easter bunnys and so on.

[SoftTouch]

I kinda do, but there is no way he created the world. I'm more on the explosion theory.

[RoadRunner71]

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

Yeah I am a believer. It makes much more sense than a sudden explosion for absolutely no reason which creates Earth as a coincidence and us out of luck which makes us rendering USELESS. Also, it's just a belief. We have been created for a reason.

 

I think Science is one of the biggest political BULLsh*t there has ever been. Isaac Newton found out about Gravity a billion years late. Science told us we were evolved from monkeys so what does that tell you?

[GunWrath]

 

Yeah I am a believer. It makes much more sense than a sudden explosion for absolutely no reason which creates Earth as a coincidence and us out of luck which makes us rendering USELESS. Also, it's just a belief. We have been created for a reason.

 

I think Science is one of the biggest political BULLsh*t there has ever been. Isaac Newton found out about Gravity a billion years late. Science told us we were evolved from monkeys so what does that tell you?

Quite frankly, this is why there are atheists in this world. Because of statements like these.

[Raavi]

No, I like my sanity just fine, thank you very much.

[GunWrath]

"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory."

 

-Richard Dawkins

[theadmiral]

I am a very religious person. Thanks for bumping this by the way, I haven't seen a good Sivis grandmaster smith intelligent , enlightening debate in a while now and I must have missed the one in this thread when it happened.

[Display_0]

I used to. Until I realised that my belief in the Abrahamic God conflicted with my belief that I am God.

Not sure if serious...

[Boxman108]

Nope. Nor do I believe any bs about religion never doing harm. All anyone has to do is look back at history to see why. Nowadays you have idiots who want to do away with seperation of church and state, dictating who can and cannot get married or what women do with their own bodies or even what is taught in schools based entirely on their own religion. It deserves absolutely NO RESPECT when it is affecting the lives of those who disagree.

[Fuzzknuckles]

I believe in God as much as I believe in Batman, as we have nothing but books and films to indicate their existence.

 

Basically, there is exactly zero cold hard evidence to prove the existence of God beyond the Bible. I have a copy of the Dark Knight Returns, so if we're using the same criteria to prove God's existence, Batman must be real as well.

 

Don't even start with 'intelligent design' and what not - Megan Fox's thumbs are evidence enough that there's no such thing as intelligent design.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

I believe in God as much as I believe in Batman, as we have nothing but books and films to indicate their existence.

 

Basically, there is exactly zero cold hard evidence to prove the existence of God beyond the Bible. I have a copy of the Dark Knight Returns, so if we're using the same criteria to prove God's existence, Batman must be real as well.

 

Don't even start with 'intelligent design' and what not - Megan Fox's thumbs are evidence enough that there's no such thing as intelligent design.

Then why don't you prove that there is no God? I rest my case. The Bible, The Qur'aan and whatnot evidently lead back to over 1400 years of belief. What does science have? sh*tty theories and scientific equipment which aren't even reliable in any way half the time?

Edited January 2, 2014 by FranklinDeRoosevelt

[Fuzzknuckles]

OK, FDR. Please prove God exists.

 

Because so far, thousands of years of searching have revealed nothing.