Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,535 comments
  • 1,443,753 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 626 30.5%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 369 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,059 51.6%

  • Total voters
    2,053
What are the odds of us existing right here and right now on a universal scale?

Probably gigantic. Probably so big that there´s a planet in space that looks just like ours with humans on it.


All the matter in the universe comes from exploding stars, yes? And I am made from elements that were not present at the very beginning of the universe, elements that occur in a fantastically small percentage of all the matter in existence - and this matter had to coagulate just in the right way at the right place at the right time to even form planets, let alone the odds of them being within the habitable zone of a star, let alone the jump from non-living matter to living matter taking place at such a scale that living matter proliferates and differentiates itself, eventually becoming multicelled organisms. Break me down into my component elements, and there is no reason that any of them should equate as a whole to a living being - jokes of dismemberment and stitching me back together aside.

Imagine a billion universes. A few of them will be just right.

If you take all the sand corns from Sahara and count every single one of them you would still not be able to have as many as there are stars in our universe.

Let´s break down god instead.

God sits around as usual in eternity and is bored. He decides to build a universe just like that. So he does and it´s all dedicated for humans to explore or do whatever they want in it.

Now here comes the tricky part, who made God?

God 2? Which possibly could have been created by God 3?
Or he has been there all eternity, he just exists.

Now assuming there´s only one god that have existed for all eternity, do you think he would wonder who created him? Or why he exists in the first place?
For being around in an eternity he must have had a long time to think about these things right?

Can´t you see just how outlandish the thought of a God is? It makes absolutely no sense but to fill a blank space science have not yet answered.
 
I guess I was hoping that you'd notice the untenable position (or statement) that you will always believe in god. Imagine using this in any other area of discourse:



"No matter what, I will always believe in ___________."


It should sound like nails on a chalkboard to any rational, thinking person, for there should be nothing that we create a special catagory for, for always holding that position or belief. For example, as much as I/we accept the fact of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, I/we would and should never say that I/we will always believe it no matter what; for if evidence arises that shows that it is not true, I/we are in a position of folly.


Oh! Now I see what you were getting at. "I will always believe in _____" is indeed an untenable position. At the very least, all of us will eventually die, and most likely lose the ability to believe at all. Beyond that, we're human. Malleable and very much subject to change.

Thank you for clarifying. 👍

If irrefutable evidence that there is no God were to be released at any point in the future, I would stop believing.
 
If irrefutable evidence that there is no God were to be released at any point in the future, I would stop believing.

And if irrefutable evidence for a god were presented, I would believe. But I must ask you, what would the evidence for the non-existance of a god or gods look like? Would it not look pretty much like what have now? Does it not look exactly like the evidence for the non-existance for unicorns?

If you believe in a god for an explanation of the universe just because we don't fully understand everything, how is ushering in a god a better explanation than say, a purple cloud of glitter being the creator of the universe?

I guess all god believers are saddled with the question: "What do you mean when you say god?"
 
Last edited:
hampus_dh
Probably gigantic. Probably so big that there´s a planet in space that looks just like ours with humans on it.

Imagine a billion universes. A few of them will be just right.

If you take all the sand corns from Sahara and count every single one of them you would still not be able to have as many as there are stars in our universe.

Let´s break down god instead.

God sits around as usual in eternity and is bored. He decides to build a universe just like that. So he does and it´s all dedicated for humans to explore or do whatever they want in it.

Now here comes the tricky part, who made God?

God 2? Which possibly could have been created by God 3?
Or he has been there all eternity, he just exists.

Now assuming there´s only one god that have existed for all eternity, do you think he would wonder who created him? Or why he exists in the first place?
For being around in an eternity he must have had a long time to think about these things right?

Can´t you see just how outlandish the thought of a God is? It makes absolutely no sense but to fill a blank space science have not yet answered.

Yes but you could say the same thing towards the material that created the big bang.

The duration of time he had to think things over is irrelevant. Consider the absence of time before the universe was made.
 
Yes but you could say the same thing towards the material that created the big bang.

The duration of time he had to think things over is irrelevant. Consider the absence of time before the universe was made.

What material are you speaking of that you suggest created the big bang?

Is it really? Seeing as he´s been there for an eternity, time must exist for him aswell.
 
hampus_dh
What material are you speaking of that you suggest created the big bang?

Is it really? Seeing as he´s been there for an eternity, time must exist for him aswell.

The big bang theory started with a material that explodes. I'm not sure but I think it's some kind of atom.

And god may have created the existence of the linear time which we are currently in. I believe Gods "time" of existence could be explained as like a circle, which has no beginning nor end.
 
The big bang theory started with a material that explodes. I'm not sure but I think it's some kind of atom.

And god may have created the existence of the linear time which we are currently in. I believe Gods "time" of existence could be explained as like a circle, which has no beginning nor end.

Ok, do you have a name on this exploding atom?
 
hampus_dh
Ok, do you have a name on this exploding atom?

No I do not have a name of this material. I said that I think it was an exploding atom which the theory is based on, I never confirmed this.
Maybe you could reveal this material which created your big bang? It is what you believed happened after all.
 
Ok, do you have a name on this exploding atom?

A singularity. Though the first element from the Big Bang was probably Hydrogen, as it is the simplest, and most abudant in the universe.

Is it really? Seeing as he´s been there for an eternity, time must exist for him aswell.

Generally if you're an entity them the arrow of time does not exist from your point of reference. :)
 
PeterJB
A singularity. Though the first element from the Big Bang was probably Hydrogen, as it is the simplest, and most abudant in the universe.

Generally if you're an entity them the arrow of time does not exist from your point of reference. :)

Thanks. Oh, and there's the evidence that Christians do have basic knowledge of scientific theories for those who doubt.
 
TankAss95
The big bang theory started with a material that explodes. I'm not sure but I think it's some kind of atom.

And god may have created the existence of the linear time which we are currently in. I believe Gods "time" of existence could be explained as like a circle, which has no beginning nor end.

From: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today.

Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.

While it is true that much of this information is speculative, as the universe ages we are able to become increasingly confident in our knowledge of its history. By studying the way in which the universe exists today it is possible to learn a great deal about its past. Much effort has gone into understanding the formation and number of baryons present today. Through finding answers to these modern questions, it is possible to trace their role in the universe back to the Big Bang. Subsequently, by studying the formation of simple atoms in the laboratory we can make some educated guesses as to how they formed originally. Only through further research and discovery will it be possible to completely understand the creation of the universe and its first atomic structures, however, maybe we will never know for sure.



But i believe they not yet know what may have triggered the big bang.
 
Owen.C93
What would it take? It seems current evidence is pretty conclusive.

Then where is it? Its all fine to say you are an atheist because you simply dont believe in something without the supporting evidence, and thats all cool. But then there are some that say there is evidence that there is no God, yet there isnt. There is not a single shred of evidence saying that God does not exist. Now, there might be evidence that helps the claim that God doesnt exist, if thats what you mean. But there is no evidence that directly states that God doesnt exist, if there was then this thread wouldnt be here right now.
 
Then where is it? Its all fine to say you are an atheist because you simply dont believe in something without the supporting evidence, and thats all cool. But then there are some that say there is evidence that there is no God, yet there isnt. There is not a single shred of evidence saying that God does not exist. Now, there might be evidence that helps the claim that God doesnt exist, if that's what you mean. But there is no evidence that directly states that God doesnt exist, if there was then this thread wouldnt be here right now.

Read up. (see sub-title of book).

Now if you're going to squalk and/or not look at the evidence, there's nothing I can do about that.
 
Just for reference...

Its all fine to say you are an atheist because you simply dont believe in something without the supporting evidence

If you have evidence - and conclusive evidence at that - it's no longer belief.

But then there are some that say there is evidence that there is no God, yet there isnt. There is not a single shred of evidence saying that God does not exist.

That's because God with a Big G is non-falsifiable. That is, it's a concept constructed in a specific manner to deny the ability to disprove it - or, more to the point, it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist.

To bring up Russell's Teapot again, sort of, I can contend that there is a fluorescent pink, invisible, intangible teapot orbiting your head at five times the speed of light. This concept cannot be disproven - it is impossible to generate any data that disproves it, or, more to the point, it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist.

This is why there isn't any evidence that says God doesn't exist. First, there can't be. Second, we wouldn't bother trying anyway, because there can't be. There is no part of science concerned with proving non-existence of anything.
 
"God is the finish line that is drawn at the start."


With a litle correction, I find that phrase beautiful. Full circle.
 
Question to God beleivers:

What is the basis for your own personal belief in God?
 
Then where is it? Its all fine to say you are an atheist because you simply dont believe in something without the supporting evidence, and thats all cool. But then there are some that say there is evidence that there is no God, yet there isnt. There is not a single shred of evidence saying that God does not exist. Now, there might be evidence that helps the claim that God doesnt exist, if thats what you mean. But there is no evidence that directly states that God doesnt exist, if there was then this thread wouldnt be here right now.

My question was to the person that said that if they saw evidence disproving god they would stop believing, I asked what that evidence would be because I actually can't think of any more than there is now (regardless whether you think it is conclusive or not is irrelevant).
 
Question to God beleivers:

What is the basis for your own personal belief in God?

Personal evidence. I know it sounds quite bland, but for some it doesn't take much. For others, like yourself, you need much more evidence. However, that would never happen. If God came down and said, "Look, I am real", and then preformed many miracles, no one would believe it.
 

Those are your beliefs. Those are not the basis for your beliefs.

Personal evidence.

Evidence. I love evidence. Please elaborate.

I know it sounds quite bland, but for some it doesn't take much. For others, like yourself, you need much more evidence. However, that would never happen. If God came down and said, "Look, I am real", and then preformed many miracles, no one would believe it.

I'd prefer if you answered my question with statements referring to your own personal beliefs and not your assumed beliefs of others.
 
Villain
Question to God beleivers:

What is the basis for your own personal belief in God?

My basis? As stated I think when you ask "why?" enough you eventually reach an area where the supernatural starts to make sense. After reflecting on this notion I feel that it's enough to convince me that there is a higher being, and since I have no other label for it, I just call it God.
 
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=5653661#post5653661


And before you say it, I'll quote Famine (I like doing it :D )

"If you have evidence - and conclusive evidence at that - it's no longer belief."

Personal evidence. I know it sounds quite bland, but for some it doesn't take much. For others, like yourself, you need much more evidence. However, that would never happen. If God came down and said, "Look, I am real", and then preformed many miracles, no one would believe it.



"If you have evidence - and conclusive evidence at that - it's no longer belief."


:lol:
 
My basis? As stated I think when you ask "why?" enough you eventually reach an area where the supernatural starts to make sense. After reflecting on this notion I feel that it's enough to convince me that there is a higher being, and since I have no other label for it, I just call it God.

Actually, the more I ask why, the less I can fathom the existence of a supernatural being/power.

===
Semi-O/T aside:

Your response throws me back to high school a bit. I went to a cultural/religious/racial tolerance retreat and the number one rule of that place was to always speak in "I" statements.

This is not an "I" statement: "As stated I think when you ask "why?" enough you eventually reach an area where the supernatural starts to make sense."

Reworded into an "I" statement: "As stated I think when I ask 'why?" enough I eventually reach an area where the supernatural starts to make sense"

Dialogue in a forum like such as this is much more productive if everyone sticks to "I" statements. I think you're smart enough to realize why that is without having me spell them out for you.
===

Getting back on topic, are you saying that you believe in a supernatural being because you asked yourself "why?" and could not come up with any other answer better than "well, there must be something superpowerful controlling everything"?
 
Evidence. I love evidence. Please elaborate.

I doubt you would consider it evidence since it's technically more along the lines of massive coincidences and judgment.

I'd prefer if you answered my question with statements referring to your own personal beliefs and not your assumed beliefs of others.

I think I assumed rightly. What don't agree with about my second statement?
 
I doubt you would consider it evidence since it's technically more along the lines of massive coincidences and judgment.

Does it fit this criteria?
EVIDENCE
1.that whichtends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign


========
I think I assumed rightly. What don't agree with about my second statement?

Fine, I'll play this game with you:

If God came down and said, "Look, I am real", and then preformed many miracles, no one would believe it.

This is automatically false because billions of people already believe in God without any evidence.
 
Last edited:
Back