Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

@huskeR32 Opinions are opinions. There are no wrong opinions.

There most certainly are. But that's a little off-topic, so I'll leave it alone.

If you think my opinion is wrong...

I do indeed, but that wasn't my point of contention with you. Rather, I was suggesting that you drop the view that this thread is a bunch of bullying atheists who aren't willing to hear opposing viewpoints. Being able to quickly and soundly rebut many of the most popular and unfounded claims that theists love to make doesn't mean we aren't listening, it means we've heard them all before, many many times, and are reacting accordingly.

...and you are right, then prove me God doesn't exist...

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1) As has been covered ad nasueam in this thread already, the existence of god is unfalsifiable.

2) I didn't make the claim that he/she/it doesn't exist. Why should I have to prove a statement that I didn't make?

...or tell me how the universe appear from nothing...

Again, not something that I claimed. Truth is, we don't know what the universe "appeared from." That the origin of the universe is unknown doesn't mean it's nothing.

And of course, (and this is yet another recurring theme that has already been brought up countless times here) your view faces the same problem, only one step farther back. If the universe can't "appear from nothing," then god can't either.

...(since it's proved that universe has a finite past)...

Is it now? Care to share the evidence of that?

...or from where does objective moral values came.

Has been addressed before, most recently just one page ago.

Until then, you're not more right than I am.

Indeed. But since I'm not actually making any positive claims (I'm simply refuting yours), I'm less wrong than you are.

We all "belive" in dark matter and we don't know if it's there.

Instead of going through the whole thing again, I'll just say that you need to look up the word "believe" before using it again. This, also, has been discussed countless times here.

But science came up with that idea...

Science doesn't just "come up" with anything. It relies on observation and experimentation to provide rational explanations.

...because otherwise what we know and see wouldn't make sense by the laws of physics.

Then we need to (and we will) continue to explore and refine the laws of physics until it does all add up.

Why would I belive in dark matter and not belive in god?It's a leap of faith this 2 cases.

Because the existence of one of those two things is supported by objective evidence, and the other isn't?

 

[Mark T]

So let me sum up:
I believe there's an energy which we call God that has shaped the Universe. There may be many, there may be none, but I believe in one.

I don't believe there is a God as humans have come to interpret it. I don't believe there's an intervening entity which favours a particular belief. I don't believe in heaven or hell. I would consider myself an anti-theist because I reject and hate the thought of an entity which is totalitarian in the same way I hate the though of having my country run by Kim Jong-un.

I reject modern religions and it's various sects completely.

However I do believe that if there is a God he would be non-intervening and he wouldn't reveal himself to humans. I would explain why here but it would be a very long passage.

 

[Carbonox]

However I do believe that if there is a God he would be non-intervening and he wouldn't reveal himself to humans. I would explain why here but it would be a very long passage.

As in, a deistic god. Makes a whole lot more sense than a theistic one by the way.

 

[zzz_pt]

So much nonsense to reply @huskeR32 ... I didn't call anyone a bully or something lol. I just said it's hard to keep up with the discussion when there are so many people arguing aganist. (and contrary to you, I don't assume that if the majoraty of people share an opinion they are right).

Anf I can't take you serious when you link me to a post of someone with confused ideas. That link doesn't have nothing to do with objective moral values.

Until dark matter is proven, it only extist as a belief. Scientits have "came up" with a lot of ideas based on experimentation that later were proved wrong.

One may say that time had a beginning (the big bang), in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. In an unchanging universe, there is no physical necessity for a beginning. But in a changing universe (of which we are definitely sure of) a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some external cause, perhaps one from outside of the universe (a multiverse is one solution to this problem).

I would add God to a possible solution to this problem.

We can't prove it yet (I did it has been proved but I did a mistake. It's NOT been proven) because we can't see beyond the cosmic horizon (inicial time of the big bang and so on). But it's the most defended and plausible idea today. The Multiverse theory has to many problems to be taken seriously at least for now (from what I know). I would suggest you to search for more info if you're interested.

Multiverse is suported by objective evidence? Where? When? How?

________

@Mark T You have a very confused idea of god...

@Scaff DO you think we are equal to any other animal? I have a simple question. Would you give your live for your pet? (maybe some people would). Would you risk your life for one of your friend's life? (probably yes) And would you risk you life or your friend's pet? Or a strager's pet? Or a random cat or rat or pigeont? If we are animals and we are not "above" any other animal spieces and if animals feel and think as we do, why don't we know of any case of people risking and giving their lives for an animal. In a world without god, we are all the same. No value in human life more than in a rock... To me it's an akward thought.

 

[Mark T]

As in, a deistic god. Makes a whole lot more sense than a theistic one by the way.

Agreed, I doubt that an all powerful being would get upset when someone decides to eat a pig, draw a cartoon, marry another human of the same sex or have sex in a position which he doesn't favour.

All we can do is to follow the evidence and capitalise on our discoveries.

 

[Mark T]

@Mark T

@Scaff DO you think we are equal to any other animal? I have a simple question. Would you give your live for your pet? (maybe some people would). Would you risk your life for one of your friend's life? (probably yes) And would you risk you life or your friend's pet? Or a strager's pet? Or a random cat or rat or pigont? If we are animals and we are not "above" any other animal spieces and if animals feel and think as we do, why don't we know of any case of people risking and giving their lives for an strange animal. In world without god, we are all the same. No value in human life more than in a rock... To me it's an akward thought.

I'm not confused.

Considering something to be equal doesn't mean that you would give your life for it. Would I risk my life for a friend? That's a very difficult question to answer. Would I throw myself in a front of a bullet? Probably not. Would I spare a kidney or give bone marrow, definitely yes. Both are risking my life because they both have risks of death (a small percentage in the case of transplants and donations, but still a risk).

We treat animals with respect. We certainly fight for them and treat them with respect. We see people walking out on to frozen lakes to rescue pets and stranded animals. We have thousands of organisations working to help poorly treated animals. We try to protect their habitat so they can continue to live. You can go to prison for severe animal cruelty. As humans go we don't like suffering.

 

[zzz_pt]

As love, god can only be proved by experience.

We all know love existis but it hasn't been scientifically proved. Some things will never be scientifically proven because science is limited.

@Mark T I know all of that...or do you really think I live in a cave? My question is on a deeper level if you will. I to care for animals (I would have been a vet if I weren't a deigner ) I love animals! Why is more right or more apealing to save dolphins and not to save tuna or cod? My question about this is because from an atheist point of view (a world without god), there are not objective moral values / duties, so there are not good or right, bad or evil. And if in a world like this exists some coherence one should assume that give one's life for a dog should be equally important as to give it for any other person, animal, plant.

I'm sorry if my english is not perfect but I'm portuguese and I was never good at languages.

 

[Duke]

...from an atheist point of view (a world without god), there are not objective moral values / duties, so there are not good or right, bad or evil.

This concept is actually just plain incorrect. There are plenty of reasons why there IS an objective, moral, "right and wrong." All of them have to do with the natural rights that are the birthright of every human being. Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, are not handed down from god or gods. They derive directly from the right of every human being to not be harmed, to own property (including their own lives and bodies), and to benefit from their own labor.

I'm sorry if my english is not perfect but I'm portuguese and I was never good at languages.

On the contrary - your English is excellent. I would say you are very good at foreign languages.

 

[Scaff]

Until dark matter is proven, it only extist as a belief. Scientits have "came up" with a lot of ideas based on experimentation that later were proved wrong.

Actually is a hypothesis, which is quite different to a belief.

Lots of hypothesis don't stand the experimental stage, but that's kind of the point of the scientific method, much rather that than the unchanging dogma of religion.

@Scaff DO you think we are equal to any other animal? I have a simple question. Would you give your live for your pet? (maybe some people would). Would you risk your life for one of your friend's life? (probably yes) And would you risk you life or your friend's pet? Or a strager's pet? Or a random cat or rat or pigeont? If we are animals and we are not "above" any other animal spieces and if animals feel and think as we do, why don't we know of any case of people risking and giving their lives for an animal. In a world without god, we are all the same. No value in human life more than in a rock... To me it's an akward thought.

I would not risk my life for plenty of humans, and in the case of both people and other animals a lot of other variables come into play regarding risking ones life for them. As such your point is rather moot.

Your also making the mistake of assuming that I have said that all species think in the exact same way, given that even humans don't all do that I would rather you didn't assign positions to me I don't hold and haven't said.

What it is quite clear however is that you are now attempting to back pedal on your original (incorrect) statement, rather than simply acknowledging its wrong.

On a broader note, no I do not think I am 'special' or more 'important' or hold a privileged position in comparison to any other species, I am an animal as are you.

My question about this is because from an atheist point of view (a world without god), there are not objective moral values / duties, so there are not good or right, bad or evil.

Utter and complete nonsense of the highest level.

I also find it quite disturbing that you would elevate as an ideal a moral code from a book that quite clearly outlines the right of parents to kill children, rape victims to be forced to marry the rapist, death for homosexuality; and in the ten most important rules finds space for 30% of them to be all about preserving the religion itself and not one about rape, child abuse or slavery!

If that's your idea of a moral code worth following I would much rather take the one that has developed quite well outside of the framework of religion (and pre-dates it by quite some way).

As love, god can only be proved by experience.

We all know love existis but it hasn't been scientifically proved. Some things will never be scientifically proven because science is limited.

Except we can prove 'love' as the brain reacts in a very specific manner when various emotions occur, its a matter of brain chemistry, ect.

So yes we can, I'd post a link but I get the feeling that would also get ignored.

Oh why not......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

....I'm sure you will treat it in the same manner you have everything else you don't want to understand.

 

[huskeR32]

So much nonsense to reply @huskeR32 ... I didn't call anyone a bully or something lol. I just said it's hard to keep up with the discussion when there are so many people arguing aganist.

To me, that's how you came off in this post:

It's impossible to argue in this thread. I've tried a few months ago and I had 20 people to reply to. Did you even tried to think about what I wrote?

If that's not what you meant, then fair enough. Consider it dropped.

(and contrary to you, I don't assume that if the majoraty of people share an opinion they are right).

I don't assume that at all. But if I was consistently at odds with several people, all whom have a history of intelligent, reasoned responses in this thread (Scaff and niky, for example, have pointed out various problems with your assertions recently), I would take a moment to reconsider my own point of view. I most certainly wouldn't accuse them of not being open minded, as you seemed to earlier.

Anf I can't take you serious when you link me to a post of someone with confused ideas. That link doesn't have nothing to do with objective moral values.

Oh? Taken from that quoted post:

"humans working together have a higher chance of survival than those who wander alone."

Seems relevant to me.

Until dark matter is proven, it only extist as a belief.

Again, misusing the word "belief." Now also misusing "proven." I'd suggest learning both of those words before trying to base an argument off of them.

Scientits have "came up" with a lot of ideas based on experimentation that later were proved wrong.

Just because some ideas are eventually disproved doesn't mean they were just made up. Scientific hypotheses and theories all originate from factual, objective evidence. When they become inaccurate, they are replaced by a refined alternative that better fits the evidence. At no point is anybody just "coming up" with stuff. That's not how science works.

One may say that time had a beginning (the big bang), in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. In an unchanging universe, there is no physical necessity for a beginning. But in a changing universe (of which we are definitely sure of) a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some external cause, perhaps one from outside of the universe (a multiverse is one solution to this problem).

Precisely. Which actually disproves your claim that the universe having a finite age is proven. We only know when the big bang happened, we're completely ignorant of what happened before that.

I would add God to a possible solution to this problem.

We can't prove it yet (I did it has been proved but I did a mistake. It's NOT been proven) because we can't see beyond the cosmic horizon (inicial time of the big bang and so on). But it's the most defended and plausible idea today.

Never has a citation been more badly needed.

The Multiverse theory has to many problems to be taken seriously at least for now (from what I know). I would suggest you to search for more info if you're interested.

Multiverse is suported by objective evidence? Where? When? How?

Why must theists always resort to strawmen like this? Find one time in our conversation where I even used the word "multiverse," let alone proclaimed it to be "supported by objective evidence," then I'll respond to this. Until then, I'll politely decline your suggestion to search for more info on it.

 

[Mark T]

As love, god can only be proved by experience.

We all know love existis but it hasn't been scientifically proved. Some things will never be scientifically proven because science is limited.

@Mark T I know all of that...or do you really think I live in a cave? My question is on a deeper level if you will. I to care for animals (I would have been a vet if I weren't a deigner ) I love animals! Why is more right or more apealing to save dolphins and not to save tuna or cod? My question about this is because from an atheist point of view (a world without god), there are not objective moral values / duties, so there are not good or right, bad or evil. And if in a world like this exists some coherence one should assume that give one's life for a dog should be equally important as to give it for any other person, animal, plant.

I'm sorry if my english is not perfect but I'm portuguese and I was never good at languages.

We have observed the neurological effects on the brain when we are in love. We can monitor the chemicals released by the body when we're in love and we know that the feeling of being in love doesn't last forever.

I disagree that God provides our moral foundation. The ten commandments don't prohibit slavery yet the first four relate directly to respecting God. How completely selfish! Why not remove one of those and say "thou shall respect all animals within the world and ensure they are protected and cherished". That would seem sensible rather than God trying to make sure his feelings are not hurt.

As an atheist I will say that I expect humans to treat all animals with respect. That means that if we're going to breed and eat them we need to make sure their lives are lived in comfort and that they are killed in the most humane way possible. I'm against hunting for sport, I'm against farming whereby animals are kept in cages or in conditions with no access to natural light and fields. I try to buy free range wherever I can. I encourage everyone to do the same.

There's also a passage in the bible about "dominion" over the animal kingdom. Quite a confusing term. It could be read as saying that we can do whatever we want with the animals. I think God should have worded it to say that we should use the natural resources around us but in a way that doesn't cause extinction or suffering. God's a genius by all accounts, he could have made that perfectly clear, but he chose not to.

 

[BobK]

In a world without god, we are all the same. No value in human life more than in a rock... To me it's an akward thought.

Why is the existence of God a precondition for valuing human life more than a rock? Consider that many of the atheists in this thread have clearly expressed their regard for human life.

 

[Exorcet]

As love, god can only be proved by experience.

Experience is subject to error.

We all know love existis but it hasn't been scientifically proved. Some things will never be scientifically proven because science is limited.

What about love is not scientifically defined? I don't think that "proving" love makes much sense. You can very easily prove that love exists though.

from an atheist point of view (a world without god), there are not objective moral values / duties, so there are not good or right, bad or evil.

Why would that be? I can't image any influence that gods would have on morality.

What is right and wrong is pretty clear from logic.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Except I've already shown you an example of animals (rats) doing just that.




In an experiment in which rats could have gained additional food (and these were untrained rats), they chose to free a captive rat instead. Clearly showing 'care' for another at the expense of their own immediate benefit.


In short you are simply incorrect.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/expanding_our_compassion_footprint/

No he isn't unless you are only considering the part of his paragraph you chose to bold. And even then I would dispute that what those rodents did was because they THINK or because they CARE about others. That's a bold claim, although I do think animals care about others, without the need for rodents to tell me that. I know dogs care about other dogs and usually care about the humans they belong to.

zzz_pt mentioned higher and different notions of thought and caring. And until someone shows me a simphony created by a mouse, or a painting created by a cat, or a poem created by a dog, It'll still remain an undisputed truth that there's no equivalent in animal world to the human mind.

Then, you can go about it the scientific way. I find it very interesting myself:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3051-animal-intelligence-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind

And you can, of course, deny any difference between Man and other living beings (animal or vegetal) resulting from anything other than a specific brain characteristic that allows Man to be, well ... different from all others known in this planet.

And you can watch it all and think "There's more to it".

That, I think, is where atheists don't go. Fine. The way I see it, the fact that we - all Mankind - came this far is all the evidence I need about an higher conscience and intelligence.

In fact, we are probably, in relation to God, as our dog is in relation to us. The dog has some "glimpses" of what we are and of what we do and of what we say and want. Doesn't get it fully, just enough so we can, at a very basic and primitive level, connect.

My hope? To be able to say or realize, as in Arthur Clarke's "2010" version of the famous astronaut Dave, when talking to Dr. Floyd, that the "whole thing" is wonderful:

Dave Bowman: You see, something's going to happen. You must leave.
Heywood Floyd: What? What's going to happen?
Dave Bowman: Something wonderful.
Heywood Floyd: What?
Dave Bowman: I understand how you feel. You see, it's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful.

And to end in a non-dogmatic talk, do consider Arthur Clarke gave a soul to a self aware computer. And promised him he'd go to Heaven.

HAL-9000: What is going to happen?
Dave: Something wonderful.
HAL-9000: I'm afraid.
Dave: Don't be. We'll be together.
HAL-9000: Where will we be?
Dave: Where I am now.


If I'm wrong, it won't matter, I'll never get to know that. I'll be dead by then. As in ... gone.

If I'm right, it will matter. After I'm dead. And also alive.

 

[dxld]

What about a 3D printer that can make smaller 3D printers that are able to themselves create smaller 3D printers?

A 3d printer does not have life or does not function until it it is plugged into an electric socket. not only that but 3d printers do not reproduce electronic components or program with the machine code necessary for 3d printing functionality.

As of now 3d print technology can only print the shell of another 3d printer, not the inner workings that enable that printer to function properly.

 

[Exorcet]

zzz_pt mentioned higher and different notions of thought and caring. And until someone shows me a simphony created by a mouse, or a painting created by a cat, or a poem created by a dog, It'll still remain an undisputed truth that there's no equivalent in animal world to the human mind.

Elephant, dog same thing.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Elephant, dog same thing.

Not quite, legend says the elephant has a better memory. And of course, a circus act with an elephant is much more impressive. Likewise with lions. Size does matter.

 

[Exorcet]

Not quite, legend says the elephant has a better memory. And of course, a circus act with an elephant is much more impressive. Likewise with lions. Size does matter.

What did you think of 0:40?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Interesting as the rest of the entire clip. But I don't find this more interesting than many other amazing things animals can do. I've seen dogs open locks or manage other equally difficult tasks, and that, coupled with the lesser sensitivity they have on their paws (compared to what an elephant can manage with his/her trunk), is even more impressive.

Some animals are quite clever. Doesn't change the fact that they're animals, and we are humans, and unless you tell me there's a couple of elephants right now discussing in an online forum the possibility of God's existence, all I wrote so far remains my opinion.

 

[Exorcet]

I thought of the video because I was wondering what a painting by a cat would look like. I don't think that if the elephant was a human, that the drawing would be any better because the concept of using one would be so foreign.

It's unfair asking for elephants to have this discussion and to say that it's because they're mentally incapable of doing so (although I don't think they can).

There's an interesting video on youtube of a human tribe's first contact with 20th century technology.

"Isolated tribe man meets modern tribe man for the first time - Original Footage full"

See 18:00 and 22:00 especially.

 

[LeMansAid]

Some animals are quite clever. Doesn't change the fact that they're animals, and we are humans, and unless you tell me there's a couple of elephants right now discussing in an online forum the possibility of God's existence, all I wrote so far remains my opinion.

If elephants have the capacity to discuss the possibility of God's existence it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would know that we also do. Same applies in reverse. Even if we think we understand the forms of communication they use, there's no knowing if they use other forms of communication, and how complex they are. Someone was recently telling me about the two sides of the human brain and how they communicate with each other. Apparently it turns out that not all communication is via a physical connection. If true, that would mean that communication could conceivably happen between the brains of two different people, using the same transfer method ie. telepathically. Similarly, there could be any number of ways that animals function, that we have no clue about.

It's the kind of stuff that reminds me to not assume that my future learning will be linear.

 

[BobK]

A 3d printer does not have life or does not function until it it is plugged into an electric socket. not only that but 3d printers do not reproduce electronic components or program with the machine code necessary for 3d printing functionality.

As of now 3d print technology can only print the shell of another 3d printer, not the inner workings that enable that printer to function properly.

Since you're off on another tangent here, perhaps you need to be reminded that you have yet to supply a shred of evidence for a million Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. How about actually backing a claim up for once? Or withdraw the claim.

 

[dxld]

Since you're off on another tangent here, perhaps you need to be reminded that you have yet to supply a shred of evidence for a million Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt. How about actually backing a claim up for once? Or withdraw the claim.

I will not withdraw my claim. You sound like the combination of an annoying little kid and a broken repeating record. I stated my side and that should be it, agree with it or not, I stand with my claim and I do not have to retract my claim until you prove I am completely wrong. The only way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jewish remembrance of their time as slaves in ancient Egypt is false, is to prove that the Jews are not the people of God. I know it's a tall task, but if you feel so insistent upon me withdrawing my claim, then I dare you to try. You prove to me the Jews are not the people of God and you will succeed in what Hitler failed to do, and what the Pharaohs failed to do.

 

[niky]

While differing opinions are certainly allowed (and encouraged) on here, claims of fact must have... erh... factual basis, as per the Acceptable Use Policy of the website.

 

[dxld]

Religious views should be allowed to be expressed freely, If we can't express our religious views we might as well be living in a Communist Country posting on a Communist website.

 

[niky]

The claim that there were a million Jewish slaves in Egypt is not a religious view. It is a claim of a historical event.

Like I've said: Opinions are free. Religious viewpoints are free. Heck, there are devout Christians on the moderation staff. But the rules of this board require all claims of fact to be factual. Hence, when you are asked to present evidence, it often behooves you to do so.

 

[dxld]

The claim that there were a million Jewish slaves in Egypt is not a religious view. It is a claim of a historical event.

Like I've said: Opinions are free. Religious viewpoints are free. Heck, there are devout Christians on the moderation staff. But the rules of this board require all claims of fact to be factual. Hence, when you are asked to present evidence, it often behooves you to do so.

There is no evidence to prove it is false, so I will not retract my claim until proven completely false. Not only that but I did not state the exact number, I claimed a multitude of Jews, not a million.

Remembrance of Passover and the Hebrews slavery in Egypt is a core religious tradition celebrated by Jews and Christians, for me to be asked to retract my claim would in part be asking me to renounce my faith, which I will not do. In respect to all moderators and the policy's of GTPlanet, I stand in the faith that I chose and I refuse to use words that would lead to the renouncing of my faith.

 

[orimarc]

There is no evidence to prove it is false, so I will not retract my claim until proven completely false.

No one should prove that your claim is false. YOU make a claim, YOU either prove it or retract it.

Not only that but I did not state the exact number, I claimed a multitude of Jews, not a million.

Could you quote the post where you said that? Because I need a refresh on the topic.

 

[dxld]

No one should prove that your claim is false. YOU make a claim, YOU either prove it or retract it.

I will not be compelled to retract my statement, I already provided my examples of evidence and I stand by what I provided, I do not need to retract my claim, I can forever stand by it until the day I die and will not to be forced to oppose anything that goes against my religious views, traditions or religious interpretations of historical events.

The topic of this thread is "Do you believe in God?" which is a topic I am sticking to? My answer is Yes and the reason why I believe in God is because I believe in Christ, I believe that Jews are Gods Chosen People, and I believe the Jews were freed from their Slavery in Ancient Egypt by the Miracles of God. There are many more reasons why I believe in God, but in summary these are my core beliefs.

As for my original statement, I think that originated from someone saying the Bible advocates slavery, but then I gave the example of Moses using Gods Miracles to free the Hebrew slaves and things just turned into a Giant mess of arguing.

When I first started posting I wasn't as serious , I was joking about how great the Jews are through a cross relation of Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld, King David, and Jesus Christ.

But that's the core of my beliefs, Jesus is Jewish! Jews Rock! And Judeo-Christianity Rocks!

 

[Denur]

You know what @dxld, for me it is OK to say that according to your religion a million Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt in Biblical times, but that there is no hard evidence. Just don't claim it as fact.