Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,083 comments
- 1,006,899 views
- 28,497
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
- 23,800
- Philippines
We haven't demonstrated any uncausable causes. Only that there are things in this Universe whose cause we do not yet know. And that includes the Universe itself. With the Big Bang, we don't state (in science) that there was no cause or nothing before it. Instead, we state merely that we don't know what caused it or if there was one.
It's the same with God. If we find a God, and if he tells us he's eternal... how are we to know he is actually eternal? How do we know there isn't something greater than him and he is actually a false God hiding some higher power (the "true" God)?
My mistake. Internet's been out for most of the day, so I couldn't correct it... I meant:
Remember, I am not here as one who completely denies the existence of God. I merely feel that we, as mere humans, CANNOT understand what God or the Prime Mover (if a prime mover exists) is like.
But maybe what I should have said is that "we cannot understand... YET".
Because it is likely possible that someday, we can pierce the veil of secrecy that is the quantum world and that vast unknown outside the Universe. But it is also likely not.
Again... not faith believing that, given enough data, we can possibly understand everything. The only problem is: It's currently impossible to collect enough data.
It's the same with God. If we find a God, and if he tells us he's eternal... how are we to know he is actually eternal? How do we know there isn't something greater than him and he is actually a false God hiding some higher power (the "true" God)?
My mistake. Internet's been out for most of the day, so I couldn't correct it... I meant:
Remember, I am not here as one who completely denies the existence of God. I merely feel that we, as mere humans, CANNOT understand what God or the Prime Mover (if a prime mover exists) is like.
But maybe what I should have said is that "we cannot understand... YET".
Because it is likely possible that someday, we can pierce the veil of secrecy that is the quantum world and that vast unknown outside the Universe. But it is also likely not.
Again... not faith believing that, given enough data, we can possibly understand everything. The only problem is: It's currently impossible to collect enough data.
Last edited:
Why does God's infinite quality have to be applied to the age of the universe also? If God created the universe, then the universe is 'younger' than God.
What makes you think that any God capable of creating something from nothing needs the permission of your understanding to be able to do so?
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Because of the word that I underlined. Until there's any evidence that god exists, then we're going too far to assume that he plays by different rules than everything else.
If one thing (god) can be infinite, then all things (the universe) can as well. If one thing (the universe) cannot be infinite, then everything else (god) also cannot be. You're all just arbitrarily picking and choosing when rules apply and when they don't to justify your belief in something that has no basis in fact.
dylansan
Premium
- 4,870
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
This also applies to things for which there is absolutely no evidence, subjective or not. Just because there is no evidence does not prove something doesn't exist.
That's exactly the point. There's no evidence of unicorns but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
So should I believe in unicorns or not? And why?
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
You're not lumping me in whith 'you're all just...'' are you? Either way, I've said something about this infinite deal before. If you'd like it's in post 3193 and more or less agree's with your 1st statment on infitite . Sorry for not linking it, damn posting on ps3
I just used "you all" to refer to anybody who tried to make the argument that god's existence can be infinite, but the existence of the universe must be finite. I don't recall you ever saying that, so no, it was not directed at you.
Sachs DNA YouTube link simply describes the scientific process of comparing ones theory with data only to find it false.
If the scientist in question does discover gods signature in that wealth of DNA data it might go someway towards your argument.
At the moment however that YouTube vid could be summed up as "a scientific theory needs revision", much like every theory at some point. And adds nothing to the argument of gods existence.
If the scientist in question does discover gods signature in that wealth of DNA data it might go someway towards your argument.
At the moment however that YouTube vid could be summed up as "a scientific theory needs revision", much like every theory at some point. And adds nothing to the argument of gods existence.
- 27,162
- United Kingdom
It's not a case of choosing not to address subjective evidence, it's the difficulty in subjectivity being verified. Anyone is entitled to their subjective take on something, but they can't expect their personal evidence to hold up when scrutinised. Some can, others can't.
Technically, everyone's perception of colour could be subjective. It's the whole "how do I know that I see red the same as everyone else sees red?" thing. In fact, even excluding those who are colourblind, there are certain colours, like certain shades of blues or yellows, that others will swear are purples or greens. So colour is subjective.
Only at the same time, it's not. Because whether someone sees a greenish yellow or a yellowish green, you can pick the majority of people who'll agree it's a colour that lies somewhere between yellow and green.
And then you can verify colours as points in the spectrum of light anyway. Infra red light will always be at the same point in the spectrum, whether you call the colour itself "red" or "Dave the Third".
Where I'm going with this is that someone may have had an "experience" of God at some point, but it's incredibly difficult to verify. Largely because it isn't scientifically repeatable, and partly because even if a bunch of people agree that they've experienced God, their accounts are largely different anyway.
And if you take away the factor that actually involves having to know about God in the first place. For example, how many sightings of "Greys" would there be - the little grey alien chaps from the X-Files - if their image wasn't burned into the public conscious from the media?
The fact that there are so many religions, and have been so many more representation of Gods in the past, suggests that even if people feel like there is some higher power, the chances of it being the Christian God are fairly slim - and certainly not verifiable enough to conclude that all human beings live under the Christian God's rule, which is simply arrogant.
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Not arrogant, it's just a logical conclusion from the fact that you BELIEVE in the God that Christ spoke of.
I take no offense from others thinking I am wrong and there is no God. Or from other religions thinking I am wrong and they are right. I certainly do not think of them as arrogants. Unless they - atheists or believers from other religions - act themselves as arrogant idiots that look me down, with a condescending look, because I am a christian and, among christians, a catholic.
- 27,162
- United Kingdom
...which is solely as a result of your upbringing (edit: I'd best expand this for clarity. I understand some people may not be brought up Christian, but you're hugely more likely to become a Christian, or be brought up as one, in a Christian country). If you're happy to believe that your own particular flavour of God exists, why must it come at the expense of deciding whether any other religion with their own Gods might actually be preferable to you?
My best analogy would be as follows.
Your family has always driven one brand of car - Opels, say. They've always driven them, never changed, just continually bought the next model that comes out each time. They're happy in their own little Opel world. When you first start to drive, you also go out and buy an Opel. Nothing changes - you still think it's a good car, but then you would, because it's the only brand you've ever driven.
Only because of your loyalty to the brand, you also think it's the best, and can't see why anyone would drive anything else - even though compared to its competitors, it may be a pile of rubbish. People could tell you that Fords are better, but you're used to the Opel so refuse to see the merits of Fords.
At the same time, there are Ford drivers in exactly the same situation. They've always driven Fords, they do at the moment, and they always will. And they sure as hell won't buy a Renault, even though it might suit them better, and even if all the reviews say it's a better car.
That's what religionists are like: If you enjoy your religion, and you get from it what you require, then fair play to you. But there are others out there too, some of which, if you tried them, might actually be preferable to you.
And you certainly can't assume your own personal car is the best (/God is the actual, main, true God) if you've not given consideration to the other cars (/Gods). It's arrogant to assume your car/God is the best, irrespective of belief, when others have equal grounds to the same claim from a different perspective.
To this end, I have more respect for people who might have changed their religions (through free will - not force) in the past when they discovered that there was other stuff beyond the walls of the belief they grew up with, than people who automatically assume their own belief is the true belief. People who've gone "wow, this makes much more sense".
I'd even extend that respect to former religionists who have become atheist (I'd count myself in that category - I was brought up Catholic, at school at least, but decided while still fairly young that none of it made any sense), or even atheists who have turned to religion for some reason. But sticking with exactly what you've always known seems... somehow less human. There's no exploration, no searching for something new. It's sitting in the cave while others are learning how to make fire.
Last edited:
- 28,497
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Spot on. I'm with you there.
I can't find any figures but I remember a while back reading in the news, quite possibly the BBC, that the number of British people turning to Islam is continuing to rise, and the largest percent of those who do so, somewhat counter-intutively given Islam's reputation, are white women.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Muhammed Ali
Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens)
Nicolas Anelka
Nathan Ellington
Dave Chappelle
Busta Rhymes
Chris Eubank
Snoop Dogg (Unconfirmed)
Mike Tyson
Omar Epps
All converted to Islam from various different religious backgrounds.
It's entirely up to you and whatever makes you happy, and as long as that doesn't interfere or obstruct what makes someone else happy, then all the best to you.
- 27,162
- United Kingdom
That's the important thing, of course.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,836
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
OK, that's true, but do you (or anyone else
) think it is worth spending time explaining that when a person attributes God with anything then they stop critically thinking and, therefore, the imagination, the most powerful intrinsic tool, is not utilized? I suppose one could attribute something to God and try to prove it, but it would probably more difficult being unbiased then. Just imagine if every time a question came up we just gave God credit for the answer. I'm not judging anything regarding spirituality, but I believe in staying curious. Look where that attitude got Alice.
Last edited:
- 27,162
- United Kingdom
Which is why I edited my post to clarify before you posted that.
While a person's parents may not have brought them up into a religion, the dominant religion of that country or area will likely be the religion you join (and by extension, the God you choose to believe in).
In other words, if you grow up in a well-heeled area of the UK and you choose a religion, you're likely to be CofE Christian. Dublin, Catholic Christian. Inner-city Bradford, Leicester etc among the asian communities, probably Muslim.
If you grew up in the Bible Belt in the U.S, you're unlikely to land upon Islam if you choose to follow a religion. I refer back to my previous post: If you and everyone you knew drove cars from one particular manufacturer, you'd not only have little reason to explore cars from other makers, but you'd likely believe your choice of car was better than whatever else was out there.
OK, that's true, but do you (or anyone else
Just imagine if every time a question came up we just gave God credit for the answer. I'm not judging anything regarding spirituality, but I believe in staying curious. Look where that attitude got Alice.
People can believe what they want to believe. I think, as a wider society, we're well past the point where people are unable to think critically and are dominated by religion. If some people wish to attribute creation or morality to God they can do so, but there are people out there who do research into those areas anyway for when we require some degree of accuracy on the matter.
Last edited:
Similar threads
