Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,533 comments
  • 1,436,679 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
You're thinking too literally. It's the principle that's important. Do we, as a species, have the ability to discover such things? Yes, we do - we've made monumental advances already in that sphere of knowledge, and to simply reach a point where we say "right, that's about enough, I think" is completely counter-intuitive for us as a species.

You mean, the Higgs boson which helps us understand the origins of the universe shortly after the big bang?...

Why should science concentrate on one thing, rather than something else? Why can't it look at everything with a critical eye, furthering our holistic knowledge rather than simply specifics?

Of course I think science should progress further, but its primary goal shouldn't be something that isn't even certain it can be reached. Science for humankind, not for science itself (some things that look like they don't have applications may open up unbelievable possibilities, so there is a point in researching them too, though).

My main point is that science shouldn't brainlessly be chasing the answer to how everything came into being in the first place. It should be primarily used for inventions and such that widely advance our knowledge in all areas of science.

---

But Famine, you once said you don't believe in anything. Yet:
The right answer when we reach it is more important than any answer right now.

Do you know is there a "right" answer? I wouldn't be so sure. You seem to imply that you believe there is: "when we reach it", don't you?
 
That video, I must have missed it the first time around but unfortunately I clicked it this time.

Ranks right up there with u.f.o. aliens and sasquatch. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or elated :lol:
 
But Famine, you once said you don't believe in anything. Yet:
Why do you need to invoke belief there? The right answer is the one that explains all the evidence. The right answer in the interim is the one that explains all the available evidence in the way that requires the least (both number and magnitude) assumptions.

Evidence denies faith. No belief is needed for "the right answer" when it's reached because it's based on the evidence alone.
 
Why the sureness that science one day will discover how the universe came into existence from nothing? We have no reason to in my opinion. I know my gap filler to you is "God did it" but why bring that up when it applies to you or any other Atheist as well if you refer to science one day figuring it out? It seems you rest assured that such a process could take place but with the lack of any evidence available you must admit that conclusion is not one you can hang your hat on. Do you believe that their was some eternal quantum state? If so you have to then deal with infinite regression.
I do love that you once again state.....

"Why the sureness that science one day will discover how the universe came into existence from nothing?"

....again crediting a position to me that I don't hold and have already stated as such. Which kind of makes this comment from you...

The proposed idea in the previous link you sent me on something of this sort seemed like an escape route in all honesty. Just a failed attempt to get away from being bound by the current limitations we have for the universe we live in and the only one we know of. Do you think that we are on a infinite time line? If that's the case I would like to hear what brought you to that considering all the problems that idea brings.

...rather pointless as you either haven't actually read it or you haven't understood it. If you had you would know that's not what it says or what I have said.


Not so fast. With the belief in a supreme eternal omnipotent being you get a few perks ;) The understanding that miracles could take place (breaking of the natural law) to name one and the get out card that he would not need to be limited to laws and rules he created for us to live under unless he so chose to limit himself but that itself is debatable in the Christian circle. Remember that a transcendent being isn't out in space somewhere fiddling his thumbs bound by these things but removed from such limitations.
In other worlds you simple get to make stuff up with zero evidence when you find a gap you can't answer (rather than actually trying to find out the reason).

Its that kind of thinking that brought us the wonder of the dark ages.



Also please put in laymen terms your understanding of Darwin's quote that you insinuated I purposely distorted. I don't see how the mention of Darwin questioning such things being worth ridicule.
A couple of corrections to the above. First I never said purposely distorted it, that was one of two possible reasons.

I also did not insinuate that it was distorted, I stated as a fact it was distorted. You changed one word and added two that were utterly out of context. That you distorted it is not up for debate, only the reason why is.

As for a laymen's account of the letter.

Darwin read's 'Creed of Science' > Write's to author > States it must have taken him quite a while to write it > States that he disagrees with the concept that 'the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose' > Say's the universe may not have been the result of chance > Then says that he however may think it could be using a rather vague metaphor (the bit that Creationist get rather too excited about) > Then goes on to say that natural selection is right and the author's doubts about it are unfounded.





well it does depend on whether or not you believe the Bible is fact or not
Belief has nothing to do with it. The bible can either be proven to be fact or not, belief has no place in that.



Now, science should concentrate on things that are close to being proven either true or false like the Supersymmetry theories and recently discovered things like Higgs' boson - whether is it like believed, slightly different or something that has just been thrown as pretty far-fetched hypotheses like a new group of bosons. One step at a time, because leaving open holes may result in years of research completely in vain because of an oversight in proving the facts, if the hypotheses turn out to be false.

There are a lot of things that need be researched on before we can even imagine starting to solve how everything came into existence. If it even is important.
So science should only concentrate on recent things like the Higgs Boson, despite the fact that its was a hypothetical thing for 50 years? If people hadn't spent 50 years and constructed one of the most expensive and complex experimental facilities ever, we would never have proven its existence. Now that we have we still don't actually know what its impact will be in real world terms. Oh and one of the reasons all of this was done was because it offers a great insight into what happened during the big bang.

Your example of a valid discovery is a direct result of trying to find out what happened when everything came into existence.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we can ever find out how the universe came to be.

Think it like that we are a result of a mathematical operation (which, technically we are as all science and existence can be presented mathematically).

Now, let's say the result ("us and our universe and all the being") is two.

2.

The operation is how we (in this example, "2") came to be.

Now what operation results in us, "2"?

1*2?
ln(e^2)?
2/1?
2^1?
√(4)?
1+1?
3-1?
4-2?
5-3?
etc.

There are infinite possible operations that result in two. As in any operation, the result alone isn't adequate to find out what the operation and its operatives were.

OK, that has nothing to do with the universe. By the way if we equal 2, and that's all the info we have, then I guess 2 is a constant and there is no equation. But don't look too deeply into that, because again we aren't 2 and your analogy doesn't make much sense.
Now, we, our universe and the whole existence are just the result, we cannot possibly find out what was "in the beginning".
But is it even necessary to know something like that?

You're assuming we can't know. Your last question will be answered if we find out and fully understand all the implications.







Does the answer to "how everything came into existence in the very beginning" advance our civilisation further? Is it really important?
It certainly might answer quite a few questions, so why not look into it?

Did it really matter if small invisible things that chained together to make everything we see (and don't see) existed or not? No, but chemistry is nice to have.




My main point is that science shouldn't brainlessly be chasing the answer to how everything came into being in the first place. It should be primarily used for inventions and such that widely advance our knowledge in all areas of science.
You have it backwards. Inventions don't lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to inventions. So basically we're on the right track.
 
The gods of religions and old age teachings surely when looked at logically doesn't fit the current understandings of the world and universe as we know it, as for a creator, I'm really not sure, common sense tells me there should be, but common sense usually doesn't go too well when trying to understand reality with things like quantum physics n such, all I know is that whatever the truth may be I wanna know it, even if I don't if you get me
 
Of course I think science should progress further, but its primary goal shouldn't be something that isn't even certain it can be reached.

At one point, nobody was certain we could set foot on the moon - look how that turned out.

My point: We can't be certain either way unless we try. The difficulty of finding out shouldn't alter its priority.

Science for humankind, not for science itself (some things that look like they don't have applications may open up unbelievable possibilities, so there is a point in researching them too, though).

DingDingDingDingDingDingDing! You've hit a nail on the head there, and yet for some reason you aren't associating it with what could be answers to one of the most profound questions ever asked: Where did the universe come from?

My main point is that science shouldn't brainlessly be chasing the answer to how everything came into being in the first place.

How on earth is it "brainless"?

I literally can't fathom how you could understand that answers to some questions can open up unbelievable possibilities, yet don't see answering how everything that is everything came to be.

My only possible thought is that the concept of god creating everything is a concept so dear to you that you don't want to discover the reality of it. God, creator of the universe, is still one of the very, very few "grey areas" left in explaining how the world works. It's one of the last concepts to cling on to for those who believe we're only here because of God, and not one people seem in a hurry to let go as a result.
 
My point of view is thus: If there is a "God the Creator", what greater homage can there be but for his creations to discover him and come to him?

I see the rejection of knowledge as the greatest vanity of all. If you give your creations brains, surely you must want them to actually use them? :D
 
If you give your creations brains, surely you must want them to actually use them? :D

If 'He' does exist, looking at some of the comments in this thread must make him very disappointed :)
 
Why this uhm...."fetish" for thinking that if you don't believe the universe came from (a) god you must think it came from nothing? Many religious people seem to think like that.

Is god or nothing the only two options to you?

Please put forth the option you have chosen.

Also a question for the Atheists on the forum. How many of you admit you are moral relativists? To the others where do you find your higher ground that has the final say on right and wrong?

For those bored atheists on here that love Christian material because it cements their position we are stupid I hope you find this video entertaining...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smLNmSfdRF8
 
Last edited:
Also a question for the Atheists on the forum. How many of you admit you are moral relativists? To the others where do you find your higher ground that has the final say on right and wrong?

Oh I'm so glad you asked this, it gives me reason to quote myself.


I wasn't talking about the stories of genocide, I was referring to how Scaff pointed out that rape, among other things that you would (hopefully) call horrific acts, are in fact encouraged by the Bible, yet you said this to him "Do you think rape is wrong even if the culture thinks it's right and is common practice?". So let me ask you this: do you think rape is right even if the culture thinks it's wrong and is a horrific act? If not, then your morality is just as subjective as us poor atheists.
 
Oh I'm so glad you asked this, it gives me reason to quote myself.

You still won't face your side of the problem. Typical...

It doesn't even matter if you agree with the moral law of any God in this issue. You can dive into that when comparing religion to religion which I have yet to go into. The point being you can't have any objective for of morality can you. Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.
 
You still won't face your side of the problem. Typical...

Ironic as that is exactly what you just did.

It doesn't even matter if you agree with the moral law of any God in this issue. You can dive into that when comparing religion to religion which I have yet to go into. The point being you can't have any objective for of morality can you. Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.

If you had read my post, you would have seen that the last line is "If not, then your morality is just as subjective as us poor atheists."

Morality is...Well I'll just leave this one to Famine. :D

Now please answer my question. Do you think rape is right even if the culture thinks it's wrong and is a horrific act?
 
Last edited:
Morality is subjective. For everyone.
Nup. An individual's moral code may be subjective, but morality is objective, derived through logic (which is objective) from objective rights - not the pesky codified subjective ones calling themselves "rights". Rape is using force to deny an individual their (objective) right to their own body and thus rape is objectively immoral.

See the Human Rights thread for more. And this also answers the question posed - logic is the "higher power".
 
To the others where do you find your higher ground that has the final say on right and wrong?
Myself.

Why should I not be able to set my own moral code? After all I am the one who is accountable for my own actions.


You still won't face your side of the problem. Typical...
A rather bold statement to make for one who has avoided answering a number if points raised by other members.

The bible specifically details the conditions under which rape, capital punishment and slavery are all acceptable, do you hold with those moral views? You have been asked this a number of times but not yet replied.


It doesn't even matter if you agree with the moral law of any God in this issue. You can dive into that when comparing religion to religion which I have yet to go into. The point being you can't have any objective for of morality can you. Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.

I think you mean "there are no gods" - atheism doesn't just apply to the Abrahamic god.

Oh and....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_activists_and_educators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

...I think that's a fair list of scholars, etc at the highest level who are atheists.
 
Nup. An individual's moral code may be subjective, but morality is objective, derived through logic (which is objective) from objective rights - not the pesky codified subjective ones calling themselves "rights". Rape is using force to deny an individual their (objective) right to their own body and thus rape is objectively immoral.

See the Human Rights thread for more. And this also answers the question posed - logic is the "higher power".

Well, now I feel foolish. :lol: Hadn't thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. Edited my post to prevent further embarrassment. :D

Thanks for the correction though.
 
Funny how scholars at the highest level aren't using blanket statements like "there is no God" as you guys.

I don't believe I've actually used that phrase myself. God is as real as your imagination makes him - and imagination is about as real as God gets. For me, nothing conclusively suggests he exists, so I have no reason to believe in him.

As a result, the threat of eternal damnation as a non-believer is no more scary to me than the threat of being given a piece of coal for Christmas by Santa Claus. Nor is my moral code taken from morally dubious documents like the bible, nor do I believe, with lack of evidence, that a creator was responsible for the universe and everything within.
 
Honestly yes i do because of this :)

"If you have God on your side, everything becomes clear."
~Ayrton Senna

Yes im a hardcore Senna Fan :)
 
So I'm supposed to get my morals from a book that advocates bashing babies' brains out? Riiiigghhttt.
 
^ Don't forget cutting off the foreskin of babies reproductive organ! Because (their) God said to!
 
OK, that has nothing to do with the universe. By the way if we equal 2, and that's all the info we have, then I guess 2 is a constant and there is no equation. But don't look too deeply into that, because again we aren't 2 and your analogy doesn't make much sense.

Be it two or anything else, it's the same. As long as we've got only the result in our hands, the universe, we cannot know for sure. We might be able to only assume what was "before" our universe and its laws of physics.


You're assuming we can't know.

Indeed. Prove me wrong - I don't oppose searching the answer if someone wants to do that, but I won't encourage them to do that.


You have it backwards. Inventions don't lead to knowledge, knowledge leads to inventions. So basically we're on the right track.

There is quite a lot of inventions made before they were understood. What I meant was new discoveries, after which they can be understood. Searching for something that doesn't exist but is hypothesised by the scientists might turn out to be stupid (imagine if Higgs' wasn't found, the theories would just have made people to seek for nothing).

Though, something other might have been found instead. That I mean by new random discoveries, they might surprise us and widen our knowledge.


I literally can't fathom how you could understand that answers to some questions can open up unbelievable possibilities, yet don't see answering how everything that is everything came to be.

Heh, we and the existence would be even more meaningless if we could just replicate it.


My only possible thought is that the concept of god creating everything is a concept so dear to you that you don't want to discover the reality of it. God, creator of the universe, is still one of the very, very few "grey areas" left in explaining how the world works. It's one of the last concepts to cling on to for those who believe we're only here because of God, and not one people seem in a hurry to let go as a result.

Nah, people still couldn't prove God false.

But now to think of it, how come the universe or the existence could have been created/came from nothing, there must have been something it came from. And then again, we're at the beginning: how did that thing from which our universe/existence came from do that and where did it come from? It looks like an infinite cycle for me, like some scientists have hypothesised.

Remember, matter/energy from nothing is physically an impossibility - unless it's some sort of immaterial illusion?

Even if the universe came from nothing, how the hell did it happen? Would we have to start researching nothingness to find out?

Doesn't this get pretty weird?

---

So I'm supposed to get my morals from a book that advocates bashing babies' brains out? Riiiigghhttt.

Nope. What has morals to do with believing in God? Only fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians think they have to follow the Bible literally.

Although, the New Testament has some pretty good ethics. So is the main line in the Old Testament, although some of the punishments are a bit cruel and then there are those weird stories. They both have their ethics based on truth being the ultimate principle, after all.

Remember that the Old Testament was written around 2500-3000 years ago, and in the Israelites' society obedience was vital for their survival. It's a law book for a slightly nomadic people that was surrounded by other, hostile peoples.

Worst mistake people can do is to not understand the context something is written at. This applies to fundamentalists too, for example they keep whining about there not being under-age sexual relationships mentioned in the Bible and that way they try to moralise modern people. Sure, the Israelites became of age at 13 years at the time the Old Testament was written. Context matters.
 
Last edited:
Be it two or anything else, it's the same. As long as we've got only the result in our hands, the universe, we cannot know for sure. We might be able to only assume what was "before" our universe and its laws of physics.

Well in our case we have the result, many laws that shape the result, and about 13 billion years of history leading up to the result. You seem to imply that we're hopelessly blind.




Indeed. Prove me wrong - I don't oppose searching the answer if someone wants to do that, but I won't encourage them to do that.
If I could prove that we can know, I would have. I can't, because the answer isn't known, but that's completely fine.



There is quite a lot of inventions made before they were understood.
Sure, but 99% of them probably resulted from knowledge gained previously.

Searching for something that doesn't exist but is hypothesised by the scientists might turn out to be stupid (imagine if Higgs' wasn't found, the theories would just have made people to seek for nothing).
Searching for Higgs only to find it doesn't exist is exactly as good as finding it.

Though, something other might have been found instead. That I mean by new random discoveries, they might surprise us and widen our knowledge.
Even if they discovered nothing, it would have been worthwhile. It could have indicated that quantum mechanics are wrong and we need to revise it.




Heh, we and the existence would be even more meaningless if we could just replicate it.
The meaning of the universe is already zero, can't get much lower. What meaning is there and why is it important?





Remember, matter/energy from nothing is physically an impossibility - unless it's some sort of immaterial illusion?
Or maybe it was just always there. Matter and energy were once thought to be different. Maybe there is matter, energy, and pre-Big Bang stuff and they're all the same. Maybe when pre-Big Bang stuff turns into matter and energy it creates time too. We'll only know if we try to find out.


Doesn't this get pretty weird?
Yes, which is why we don't need to stick to old answers like "God did it" or just stop caring. Knowing how everything works could potentially be very helpful.
 
We are beyond the point at which we can poke in the dirt and discover something out of the blue. Searching for a theoretical particle isn't "pointless", because the method of searching reveals more about the nature of the Universe.

Simply put. If you were stuck in a maze and you exhausted all the possible easy exits, why wouldn't you try to climb through the air vents?
 
Well in our case we have the result, many laws that shape the result, and about 13 billion years of history leading up to the result. You seem to imply that we're hopelessly blind.

The laws are a part of the result, at least according to the Big Bang theory they didn't exist until the Big Bang.


If I could prove that we can know, I would have. I can't, because the answer isn't known, but that's completely fine.

Sure, we can't know. But I suppose we never will, it's my hypothesis.


Searching for Higgs only to find it doesn't exist is exactly as good as finding it.

Yeah, but how long would it take to realise it doesn't exist, if it didn't? My point is that sticking to unproven theory is mad, they should always be suspected so much that when an experiment to prove something is run, say thrice, and nothing is found, then the theory is false. There is a problem with most scientist trying to stick to the theory by modifying it just a bit or blaming other conditions for the experiment's failure. That slows down the progress.


Even if they discovered nothing, it would have been worthwhile. It could have indicated that quantum mechanics are wrong and we need to revise it.

Indeed it would do that, but how long would it take them to confess that they were wrong? If they were stubborn, they could waste billions of money running the experiment countless times before confessing that their hypothesis is false.

But yeah, at least we would know that something is false.

Oh, and that's particle physics.


The meaning of the universe is already zero, can't get much lower. What meaning is there and why is it important?

It would become scientifically pretty unimportant, or at least uninteresting.

Also, you can't be sure that the meaning is zero. You don't know.


Or maybe it was just always there. Matter and energy were once thought to be different. Maybe there is matter, energy, and pre-Big Bang stuff and they're all the same. Maybe when pre-Big Bang stuff turns into matter and energy it creates time too. We'll only know if we try to find out.

Always there?
But how? That is no adequate answer ("we don't know" is better) because what would be the proof it was in that form before, for example?


Yes, which is why we don't need to stick to old answers like "God did it" or just stop caring. Knowing how everything works could potentially be very helpful.

Science should never stick to an answer that lacks any bit of proof through observations. But until then, "we don't know" is the answer. Then, for personal views, you can try to think it yourself: "it always was", "God created it", "42", they're as viable answers until proven otherwise. Their scientific value is nothing, but they do have philosophical value.


We are beyond the point at which we can poke in the dirt and discover something out of the blue.

Well, not completely out of the blue, but surprises, eg. new particles that are found while conducting some other experiment. Or accidental proof for some other theory.

Most theories' hypotheses are false in a way or other, even Higgs' might turn out different to how it was supposed to.


TL;DR: I am against stubbornly conducting the same experiment countless times to prove a hypothesis - if it can't be proven in the first few tries, it's false. If the conditions required are almost impossible to create, research how to create them relatively easy before attempting the experiment.
 
Last edited:
Back