Do you believe in God?

[Schwartz]

Umm sorry but I don't know how to edit posts on mobile devices
I'll do it the first chance I get tomorrow

Click on the blue/gray box above the post that has your name in it, then click "edit."

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Why am I not surprised about this kid and his 50% of Science and no fur remarks.

It's funny and sad. I don't know whether to laugh at the ignorance or cry because this is a product of our educational system influenced by a bunch of nuts. I guess I'll do both.

Okay "jmoney" I have just one question: let's pretend your completely made up facts are true... And "god" created the Universe. Who created "god?"

Brainwashed answers such as " he just is" or "he was, is and always will be" are not valid. I know that's where we're heading.

 

[Schwartz]

The answer that will probably be given is "He always has existed."

 

[Scaff]

I believe in God, Jesus and the holy spirit because it makes perfect sense. Half of science is complete bullcrap.

Name five pieces of science that are "complete bullcrap" (that's a lot less than 50% so you should have no problem proving that five are nonsense).

What makes more sense, a universe creating itself or someone creating it? Of course, someone had to create it.

What you believe or feel should be right has no bearing on anything, what you can prove does. Take a guess which has the most proof to a scientific standard.

33% of the world is christian, 25% muslim, and 1% jewish, so 59% of the world believes in the same guy.

And?

The vast majority of under eights in the western world believe in Santa and Unicorn's, doesn't make they real.

The number of people who believe in something doesn't make it exist, no critical mass of belief causes items to spontaneously exist.

As to evolution? That stupid theory can be disclaimed by one fact: that humans have no fur. This makes us completely unique, and if we evolved from monkeys then why would we lose fur? If we are outside at night, we die, so how are we the superior species if we didn't start this way?

Wrong thread for that discussion....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51448

....however you will need to bring a lot more than ignorant nonsense such as that to it.

Oh and the naked mole rat says hi to your claim of humans being unique in having no fur.

There is plenty evidence that He exists in everyday life, you just have to look for it. Why doesn't He just zap the bad people and show His face, I don't know and I believe we weren't meant to.

Show one piece to a scientific standard and you will be the first person ever to manage it.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Which god? We've focused on the Christian God, and touched on islam.

Still quite a few to consider yet...

The Christian god and the Muslim god (and the Jewish one) are the same deity.

Okay, so if we make the assumption that there is one and one god only - to make things easier, we'll go with the Christian / Muslim / Jewish one. White dude, big beard, not Santa. Him.

A couple of millennia ago, he created the universe and everything in it in that six day working week he has. Right?

Now, ignoring the terrestrial concerns such as oil, fossils and evidence of evolution, can we look at the rest of the universe?

It's fair to say that, on current thinking, the universe and time are infinite as they are continuously expanding. This means that the maths around the laws of probability points to there being life out there somewhere. Or that there has been. Or will be.

Did god create that life as well? If so, have they been given the same 200-odd Commandments? Have they been saved by a visit from Jesus? Do they have their own heaven or do they share ours?

In all seriousness, can someone answer this one? What is the official line on extraterrestrial life and the existence of god?

 

[BobK]

@SCJ

Yes, and what is it's mass? And you can't say it doesn't have any mass. If something doesn't have any mass, than by definition it doesn't exist.

What about ideas? Songs? Programs? Thoughts?

 

[XoravaX]

--

Though, if "he just was" isn't valid "it just was" doesn't sound valid either.

Something must have been, as something coming from nothingness is impossible.

Well .... maybe we can prove it .

Maybe not right this second but in the future and under 2 possible scenarios ;

1. We scientifically progress to such a stage whereby we can answer the question ourselves as to the reason ' Why ' our universe came into being . The root cause of its existence if you will . Maybe it's purpose or function to expand on that further .

Or possibly , and indeed the more paradigm shifting option of the two ;

2. A friendly information transfer upon contact from a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization .

Option 1 being the most likely of the two at this present time .

I'm not saying here that it's the job or indeed function of science to answer this particular question . I am merely stating that it could be a possibility . A much more plausible possibility than a man in the sky from my perspective .

How does this prove God can't exist? One can say he wanted to hide himself to put our belief to test.

Also, it's pretty hard to know what happened before the Big Bang as eg. time and space didn't exist "until" then - though something must have been. What was before is an impossible question to give an answer to since our universe didn't exist until the Big Bang and our universe alone isn't capable of giving an answer to where did it come from. Imagine it as that you're given a number, say 2, which represents our universe, and you have to think out the operation which resulted in 2, which represents "what was before". There is an infinite amount of possible operations, like there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses of what happened or was before the Big Bang.

As far as I can gather , superstring theory states ;

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


So i'm reading it as functionality of the universe if i'm correct ? But i'm not seeing root cause as a derivative ? A way of going back further than the Big Bang Theory for us to see a cause of Universe production ? A God or no God deal breaker if you will .

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

The greatest problem with the Superstring theory is that under any currently possible observations it (as well as other string theories) cannot be proven any more true or false than God. It has the same self-referring proof that God has - the Superstring theory is true if you just look and believe in at the theory itself, but it can't be proven by observations. Similar way God has got proof if you choose to believe - you just can't prove his existence by observations.

Also there is a very good part in that Theory of Everything article that gives arguments against that an all-comprehensive ToE could ever be made.

--
No it's not, it's an outline of how religion works .

It's not anti religious , it's merely the truth 👍

It's an aggravated outline of how everything that requires any belief works. Religion and unobservable pseudo-scientific theories alike.

The strangest thing with you is that you seem to believe in those pseudo-scientific theories (or their capability of explaining the existence), but the other side which requires belief you bash.

--
Fur gradually went away as it was no longer necessary for survival, humans' big advantage was the size of our brain. If we're outside at night, we die, but we're smart enough to make a coat.

Actually, fur went away because it was an inconvenience, not that it wasn't necessary, but that the pros of fur-less skin far outweighed the cons. It was far efficient in cooling the body under the heavily sunlit plains in Africa than a fur - and cold nights didn't become a problem until tens of thousands of years later when our ancestors moved to Middle East, Europe and Asia.

"@SCJ

Yes, and what is it's mass? And you can't say it doesn't have any mass. If something doesn't have any mass, than by definition it doesn't exist."

What about ideas? Songs? Programs? Thoughts?

Also, photons and gluons? They have no mass while moving, and don't exist stationary (though they have energy).

Same with God, what is his mass? (No pun intended )

Well, if he's got an infinite amount of energy, so is his (virtual) mass infinite (E=mc², or in this case m=E/c²).

 

[Bobalob]

The Christian god and the Muslim god (and the Jewish one) are the same deity.

Excellent, to save time I will now refer to them as the collective "Chrismujew", glad thats ceared up, moving on...

 

[XoravaX]

Excellent, to save time I will now refer to them as the collective "Chrismujew", glad thats ceared up, moving on...

You know that the Christian God and Jewish God are the same being? Jesus himself was a Jew.

Then, the Muslims view both Jewish and Christian prophets (incl. Jesus) as prophets too, similar way their Muhammad is a prophet. They also think that Muhammad descents from Abraham through Abraham's son Isma'il, and that they believe in the same God as Abraham and the other prophets. Which is the same as the Jewish and Christian God. "Allah" is a similar expression as "God", as it literally means "one God".

From Qu'ran, sura 2:116:
"And they (Christians) say: Allāh has begotten a son (children or offspring). Glory be to Him (Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth, and all surrender with obedience (in worship) to Him."

Early Islam was indeed viewed as a Christian herecy at the beginning. Islam doesn't accept that Jesus was God's son, but only a prophet.

There is a name for that "Chrismujew", it's "Abrahamic religions", and God, as in Christianity, Islam and Judaism is "Abrahamic God".


EDIT: Oh, double post.

 

[TJC_69]

How does this prove God can't exist? One can say he wanted to hide himself to put our belief to test.

Also, it's pretty hard to know what happened before the Big Bang as eg. time and space didn't exist "until" then - though something must have been. What was before is an impossible question to give an answer to since our universe didn't exist until the Big Bang and our universe alone isn't capable of giving an answer to where did it come from. Imagine it as that you're given a number, say 2, which represents our universe, and you have to think out the operation which resulted in 2, which represents "what was before". There is an infinite amount of possible operations, like there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses of what happened or was before the Big Bang.




The greatest problem with the Superstring theory is that under any currently possible observations it (as well as other string theories) cannot be proven any more true or false than God. It has the same self-referring proof that God has - the Superstring theory is true if you just look and believe in at the theory itself, but it can't be proven by observations. Similar way God has got proof if you choose to believe - you just can't prove his existence by observations.

Also there is a very good part in that Theory of Everything article that gives arguments against that an all-comprehensive ToE could ever be made.




It's an aggravated outline of how everything that requires any belief works. Religion and unobservable pseudo-scientific theories alike.

The strangest thing with you is that you seem to believe in those pseudo-scientific theories (or their capability of explaining the existence), but the other side which requires belief you bash.

Maybe one day we will know what came before the Universe ? That's the point i'm making .

If we could determine the root cause , no matter how hard at present that equation seemed to be , then of course we could find out whether or not each way .

Why can one say that he wanted to hide ? Sounds like a get out clause to protect faith in God in my opinion . There's no evidence to say if a God would want to hide or not . Given that the Bible claims that God has shown himself to man throughout history in various guises , then I can't see him getting shy anytime soon.

Since when does the field of scientific theory require belief that a theory is true ? This has been covered previously in this thread .

Again , science is not a belief system . And I am not bashing anything . If I was to say so i'm sure the mods would have something to say about it . You misunderstand me I feel.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Though, if "he just was" isn't valid "it just was" doesn't sound valid either.

Something must have been, as something coming from nothingness is impossible.

If you're implying that "it just was" is a scientific response, no intelligent person would theorize and publish "it just was" If they wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.

There are plenty of theories that are much, much more in depth than a laughable catch phrase used by the church as the end all answer.

 

[XoravaX]

Maybe one day we will know what came before the Universe ? That's the point i'm making .

If we could determine the root cause , no matter how hard at present that equation seemed to be , then of course we could find out whether or not each way .

Well, what came before the thing that came before the universe? How did it came to be?

Why can one say that he wanted to hide ? Sounds like a get out clause to protect faith in God in my opinion . There's no evidence to say if a God would want to hide or not . Given that the Bible claims that God has shown himself to man throughout history in various guises , then I can't see him getting shy anytime soon.

Why?
For what reason?

I don't know.

There is no proof for God anyway that is up to a scientific standard, so why would this change it? There can't be counter-proof either, so... that's it. Belief.


Also, if God was proven, I bet he would get mad at people begging to help them "because he is supposed to". If God had any traits that are like ours, I think he would like to see us succeed on our own. After all, his "creation" (and by this I don't mean the one explained in the Bible, but the universe itself) kind of failed if it required constant interventions.

Since when does the field of scientific theory require belief that a theory is true ? This has been covered previously in this thread .

Please, explain the observations that prove the superstring theory true.

Its proof is based on itself; "under this theory, this equation is true" (I can say that x=y, assume it as an all-comprehensive truth and build a theory on it too) - the theory proves itself in the theory itself. There is a problem in that, because under scientific standard the proof of a theory can't refer to itself, which it does in the current models of the string theory. Science has to be able to be proven through observations.

Try blowing wind to the sail while sitting in a sail boat. That's like referring to itself.

Again , science is not a belief system . And I am not bashing anything . If I was to say so i'm sure the mods would have something to say about it . You misunderstand me I feel.

Indeed. Science is not a belief system, but pseudo-science is.
Also, making religion seem like a "fool's thing" is quite bashing it in my opinion. Especially when you yourself believe in unproven hypotheses that don't follow a scientific standard (superstring theory), but make it look like science (hence the word "pseudo-science").

If you're implying that "it just was" is a scientific response, no intelligent person would theorize and publish "it just was" If they wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.

There are plenty of theories that are much, much more in depth than a laughable catch phrase used by the church as the end all answer.

I see your point, but eventually any theory's supporters have to resort to either "it just was" or "I don't know", which isn't very good for the theory itself. The problem is that something must have always existed in a form or another, because something coming from nothing is just so absurd an idea. A real scientific answer would be "nothing as we know it" as there was no space or time "prior" to the Big Bang.

 

[gamerdog6482]

Please, explain the observations that prove the superstring theory true.

Its proof is based on itself; "under this theory, this equation is true" (I can say that x=y, assume it as an all-comprehensive truth and build a theory on it too) - the theory proves itself in the theory itself. There is a problem in that, because under scientific standard the proof of a theory can't refer to itself, which it does in the current models of the string theory. Science has to be able to be proven through observations.

Try blowing wind to the sail while sitting in a sail boat. That's like referring to itself.

Wrong. Facts prove theories. And there is facts supporting Superstring Theory, whilst there are not facts supporting the existence of a god(s).

Indeed. Science is not a belief system, but pseudo-science is.
Also, making religion seem like a "fool's thing" is quite bashing it in my opinion. Especially when you yourself believe in unproven hypotheses that don't follow a scientific standard (superstring theory), but make it look like science (hence the word "pseudo-science").

As above, there are facts supporting Superstring Theory.

I see your point, but eventually any theory's supporters have to resort to either "it just was" or "I don't know", which isn't very good for the theory itself.

Wrong again.

The problem is that something must have always existed in a form or another, because something coming from nothing is just so absurd an idea.

The law of conservation of mass does disprove "something coming from nothing", but at the same time Big Crush theory would explain it without violating that law.

A real scientific answer would be "nothing as we know it" as there was no space or time "prior" to the Big Bang.

Aforementioned Big Crush theory states otherwise.
And from what I gather, M-Theory also states otherwise. M-Theory is pretty well accepted.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I just noticed, this thread has reached critical mass. The post count... it's...



/Off topic.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Shamelessly stolen from Ricky Gervais:
Dear Religion,
This week we safely dropped a man from space. You shot a girl in the head for wanting to go to school.
Yours, Science

 

[Dennisch]

Sums it up pretty good.

 

[DK]

Name five pieces of science that are "complete bullcrap" (that's a lot less than 50% so you should have no problem proving that five are nonsense).

Uh...is there 5 different names for creationism?

 

[gamerdog6482]

Uh...is there 5 different names for creationism?

As far as Thesaurus.com is concerned, no.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Name five pieces of science that are "complete bullcrap" (that's a lot less than 50% so you should have no problem proving that five are nonsense).

I'm going to have a crack at this one.
Homeopathy
Flat-earth theory
Astrology
Bio-rhythms
Lie detectors

BOOM!

 

[gamerdog6482]

Lie detectors

These things totally work.

 

[Kingland093]

How?

 

[gamerdog6482]

How?

 

[Kingland093]

Ok but how does it actually work?

 

[gamerdog6482]

Ok but how does it actually work?

...and measuring your pulse.
Lie=anxiety=higher pulse, at least that is what I heard of it.

 

[Kingland093]

Well all you have to do to fool it is just dont become anxious

 

[Azuremen]

Ok but how does it actually work?

The common method is via a polygraph, which checks heart rate and other body functions that are controlled my sub-consciously. A baseline standard is created for comparison and this is done by asking questions to which the answers are already known. From there, questions with unknowns are asked and the results are compared to the data collected during the "calibration" phase.

They are, however, considered unreliable due to methods used to spoof them and generate false positives in initial calibration. You can easily look up this information on your own, but there are also other numerous other methods used for lie detection.

 

[Scaff]

Uh...is there 5 different names for creationism?

I'm going to have a crack at this one.
Homeopathy
Flat-earth theory
Astrology
Bio-rhythms
Lie detectors

BOOM!

Guys, I did say science rather than pseudoscience.

Oh and...

 

[TJC_69]

Well, what came before the thing that came before the universe? How did it came to be?

Why?
For what reason?
I don't know.

There is no proof for God anyway that is up to a scientific standard, so why would this change it? There can't be counter-proof either, so... that's it. Belief.

Also, if God was proven, I bet he would get mad at people begging to help them "because he is supposed to". If God had any traits that are like ours, I think he would like to see us succeed on our own. After all, his "creation" (and by this I don't mean the one explained in the Bible, but the universe itself) kind of failed if it required constant interventions.

Please, explain the observations that prove the superstring theory true.

Its proof is based on itself; "under this theory, this equation is true" (I can say that x=y, assume it as an all-comprehensive truth and build a theory on it too) - the theory proves itself in the theory itself. There is a problem in that, because under scientific standard the proof of a theory can't refer to itself, which it does in the current models of the string theory. Science has to be able to be proven through observations.

Try blowing wind to the sail while sitting in a sail boat. That's like referring to itself.

Indeed. Science is not a belief system, but pseudo-science is.
Also, making religion seem like a "fool's thing" is quite bashing it in my opinion. Especially when you yourself believe in unproven hypotheses that don't follow a scientific standard (superstring theory), but make it look like science (hence the word "pseudo-science").

I see your point, but eventually any theory's supporters have to resort to either "it just was" or "I don't know", which isn't very good for the theory itself. The problem is that something must have always existed in a form or another, because something coming from nothing is just so absurd an idea. A real scientific answer would be "nothing as we know it" as there was no space or time "prior" to the Big Bang.

How am I making religion a fools thing exactly ? Is it because I can re-bat sufficiently in a debate , or do you see words that I don't appear to be typing ? A person is free to believe in whatever they like , however , if a belief or misconception can be demonstrably rebutted then what's so wrong in that ?

You can't accurately define any of a Gods characteristics , because if a creator does exist , it certain isn't the man made one from the Bible , or Koran or similar . Of that you can be sure .

Please explain and quote me where I said Superstring Theory was a completely proven and working model .
As far as i'm aware I said this ;

TJC_69
So i'm reading it as functionality of the universe if i'm correct ? But i'm not seeing root cause as a derivative ? A way of going back further than the Big Bang Theory for us to see a cause of Universe production ? A God or no God deal breaker if you will.

Science is indeed proven through observation , plus rigorous testing of the theory . I think the main problem religion has with science is the fear factor of one day being proven to be utterly false . Maybe that scares people so they fight against it .

 

[Azuremen]

Well all you have to do to fool it is just dont become anxious

Yes, master control of your sub-conscious and body, simple as that.

You realize the difficulty in what you just stated?

 

[Dennisch]

I've seen a Dutch documentary about tests like that.

LSD and Mushrooms are key in beating the system.