Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Absolutely there is a God.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 26
Absolutely there is a God.Page 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

Posted By: aremeself
Even if the universe was created an almost infinetinfinet amount of time ago,

that the Universe exist is not in dispute ...

the question is if God exist....... then who created God

can anyone answer that question without Thumping the Bible or any other religious scripture

if not then that is why it's impossible to have a belief in God and not be religious

and that is why a "belief" that God created the Universe is not about logic but about Faith and therefore nothing more than childhood "going to go to hell"programming kicking in....oops...er.. I meant nothing more than a religious belief

those that believe in God are forbidden to think beyond God ...funches 3:16
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 27
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:15:47 AM
I am not religious. I adhere to no religion. Do not believe in heaven nor hell. Read discover and scientific American monthly. My favorite shows are on netflix about the cosmos etc. Logic tells me there is a god. I do not try to define him. Don't know if he cares about us or not. Much like Spinoza's god, I believe he is the universe, nature itself...and responsible for conscious thought. This is the only logical explanation.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 28
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:45:29 AM

Posted By: Politicallyright
I am not religious.

neither are Buddhists


I adhere to no religion.

neither do Deists


Do not believe in heaven nor hell

neither do Jews


Read discover and scientific American monthly.My favorite shows are on netflix about the cosmos

as like the Scientologist


Don't know if he cares about us or not.

neither do Agnostics


I believe he is the universe, nature itself.

so does the Wicca


...and responsible for conscious thought.

if that is true then use your conscious thought to think beyond God and answer the question ...who created God?

it's one of those pesty questions that God believers are afraid to answer .....because it takes away from the Glory of God to give an answer that is not in religious scripture ....and that's what make a belief in God religious
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 29
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 11:52:26 AM
Not afraid to answer, impossible to answer. Personally, I suspect god is from another universe. Pure speculation. Nobody knows, just like nobody knows how or why our universe came into existence. The fact we don't know does not mean we are wrong about God's existence and causality.
 caballerosiempre
Joined: 12/5/2015
Msg: 30
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 12:20:05 PM
So you joined POF with this new profile, almost certainly having had other profiles before, basically to post this? Why are you so interested in convincing others to believe as you believe? I mean really, join 26 January and immediately as soon as you could after the 3 day minimum wait time, pontificate in this?
Lose previous debates under older previous profile names? Deleted before for nasty arguments over it?
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:07:47 PM
Yule_liquor:

It would be interesting and maybe helpful to learn everything about Antony Flew and what he's said about things...but I think that a question needs to be asked here -

Does the fact alone that he had a particular opinion, or change of opinion, at all demonstrate that those opinions are accurate or true?

Do we embrace opinions of others, say Einstein for example, simply because they are opinions of Einstein (dogmatically), or because of more than that?

Hoping to get insight by posting a thread on this subject here will just invite a gang militant atheists who will chase you down and verbally stomp you out!

Please don't start this boo hoo crap. You come in here and say things. That's how that works. That's what this place is for. But when it's about science, you are required to be responsible about what you say and back it up or defend it if you might be full of crap and someone else challenges you. So you shouldn't whine about that and unfairly mischaracterize those who do exactly what we should be doing when discussing scientific topics - and hell, on any topic for that matter. Any topic at all...even when talking about relationship or sex stuff in other threads, if it seems like you might be full of crap, someone should beg-to-differ, and you should be able to handle that.

When I look at the responses after your post when you say this ^, I wonder what you're talking about. People aren't supposed to discuss this or disagree? Where exactly is the 'gang militant atheists' who are trying to 'chase you down and verbally stomp you out'? You don't get stomped on just because you have a particular opinion. But your opinion might get stomped on because of WHY you hold the opinion and you not being able or willing to explain it.

There is one thing that I'm militant about stomping on - f*cking cry babies who want to blame the wrong things for them wanting to be unfair conversationally. Damned right.

Aprilikesrosasblancas:

WE only have to look at the nature, it is so perfect, everything has a balance, and it is perfectly planned and coordinated and this does not happen by accident or coincidence.
All this tells us that THERE IS an, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient supreme being.

The question remains - Why? Why is this so?

CressB:

the idea that something can come from nothing or that a certain aspect of the universe is eternal

When pondering the fact that time doesn't seem to even exist when we look at things on the quantum level, I suddenly have a thought - maybe everything can be eternal in a sense. Maybe time really can extend infinately into the past and into the future, intrinsically, as Hinduism might say. Apparently our experience/perception of time and time-passage is an 'illusion'.

Long ago in these forums I tried to explore this. As part of that, I felt it important to clarify what we mean when we say "time" and what that is...as per on our level versus what is or isn't going on in the quantum level. In other words, to define it from our level of experience even though that wouldn't be the end of the story and it'd need re-defining when we get to the quantum level. When I wanted to do this, it was practically poo-pooed outright (because of the fact that reductionism (taking us to the quantum level) should give us a more fundamental and therefore more accurate explanation). However, I think that it's very helpful for us to understand our own perception and experience of time as part of the larger endeavor - even if it means something different when we go down further. Moreover, this requires understanding the difference between entropy and energy transformation and energy states, etc.

Hence...we perceive time and time's passage. We experience it. But what are we percieving and experiencing, and why? If, in a sense, it is an illusion, and defining it therefore wouldn't really be defining time ultimately...explaining time from our level of existence nonetheless helps us to answer the question further as well as answer other questions.

So, if time as we understand or experience it really isn't in the first place, and instead it's a perception/experience that kinda-sorta 'emerges' for and from our perspective...then if we're talking about things on an ultimate quantum level and ultimate existence-reality level, like the big-bang/great-expansion, then it strikes me that how we think of time from our level of experience is irrelevant and inapplicable...and especially given that a feature of that realm of science is that time is already non-existent as we know it anyway. Therefore, maybe at what we think of as the big-bang/great-expansion there is no beginning in the first place, no "beforetime". Maybe the idea just doesn't apply. Not just that time extends back eternally from there, but that at that level of reality time just isn't a part of it all anyway.

Even this does not quell the complication. For something to expand, it must have a place in which to expand, which begs the question "what is external to the universe". The problem is inherent to the position

Yes. It is said that space and time simply get created thusly. But this doesn't seem to be right...unless we think of it with deeper terms and/or realize that we need to explain it differently. (Maybe it's correct, but something gets lost when translating from the quantum sciences to everyday language.)

(By the way, we should stop using "begging the question" incorrectly. It's getting to be habit among the general population.)

IgorFrankensteen:

Actually, as most people do, you aren't grasping WHAT is expanding. It isn't STUFF, expanding INTO an already existing space. It is EXISTENCE ITSELF expanding.

Not at all an easy thing to wrap one's head around.

I dunno...I can't hardly wrap my head around it.

CressB:

simply because it is "EXISTENCE ITSELF" does not exclude it from the concept that things that exist require a place in which to exist

What igor means (which I know that you know) is that the place in which for it to exist is what got expanded or 'created'...

Then there is the traditional ideas of a multiverse which would also require a place to house universes, or membranes: multiple membranes colliding with one another means a place to house membranes and a place for them to move. the last two may not be places in the traditional since of the word, but as I said earlier an ultraverse may have some different rules.

...the trick here is that apparently we can't think of multiverses as three-dimensional bubbles which exist within a larger three-dimensional house (or is this right?). Again, on the ultimate level of reality, space and time are something different than how we think of and experience them. Our one universe allegedly has no center nor edge (and the same for time huh?)...and models of how this is one of many which exist "within" a larger realm somehow account for things not having edges as we think of them. And that's why this is so mind-boggling.

Or the eternal aspect of existence idea, everything in the universe can be satisfactorily explained except this one eternal aspect, it has no origin thus it never came into existence, but has always existed. Its existence cannot be explained therefore logic is forever broken, at this point, concerning the rest of the universe.

Maybe it is understandable if we remember that at this level of reality time isn't how we usually think of it? 'Eternal' and 'before' don't even apply? (arg!)

politicallyright:

For example, no matter how powerful a future computer, even if it can duplicate the human brain...I do not believe a computer would ever become sentient. There is something more there that points to Devine intervention.

Ok, fine. Something there points to something else...but why "Devine intervention"? Or rather, what is devine intervention? And how would that explain things satisfactorially?

funchesf:

an amoeba has the ability to react to it's environment so isn't it therefore sentient and have a level of consciousness

The act of interacting with external environment is how we define intelligence. But this would be different from whether or not something has sentience or consciousness or awareness. However, I can't say that I'm sure about that previous sentence. But I do think that it's important to know how we define the phenomena of 'intelligence', and to always consider that it may be different from an internal experience of sentience.

since an amoeba lack a brain isn't it an an example of how a computer can achieve sentience/consciousness without a brain

Addressing this as having intelligence without a brain instead of having sentience/consciousness without a brain...we need to remember how we define the phenomena of intelligence. What we're talking about with that word. This shows us that a 'brain' as we casually think of 'brain' isn't required. Your immune system, for example, is very intelligent...it "thinks"...a brain, but a very different type of 'brain'.

But then again, as I've been exploring, we may need to greatly expand our understanding of intelligence and a certain experience of awareness. It would be pointless to have to say that the amoeba or a future computer is 'aware', because if they're aware of sensory input and react to it, then 'obviously' they are 'aware'. But are they experiencing a certain level of consciousness and self-identity? Are they aware of themselves more than reacting to environment or input for self-survival?

Maybe the question has more to do with free-will (though we even argue about free-will existing). When we talk about whether or not a computer or amoeba has a certain consciousness, it often comes down to "is it just reacting to things automatically and/or according to programming?" This suggests that a certain sense of consciousness or self-identity-awareness goes hand-in-hand with a degree of free-will. (Can naysayers against the concept/existence of free-will convincingly explain that my choices to ask and reflect on these kinds of questions are not demonstrative of some free-will? If I were picked to test the consciousness of an A.I., it's THESE kinds of questions that I'd use, as well as sideways vernacular jumps and different styles of humor and rhetoric - it wouldn't matter how well it conversed with me on these things, but if it could understand the questions and try to wrestle with them as well as be curious about them.)

the existence of a consciousness requiring Divine Intervention points to a religious concept called a "soul"

As soon as we take the tainting religious-baggage out of the concept of "soul" which makes it an off-limits pariah, we can consider the general idea from a more scientific standpoint.

politicallyright:

The fact we don't know does not mean we are wrong about God's existence and causality.

No, it doesn't mean that. But it does mean that you don't know. Obviously. As you've just said yourself here.

Logic tells me there is a god. I do not try to define him. Don't know if he cares about us or not. Much like Spinoza's god, I believe he is the universe, nature itself...and responsible for conscious thought. This is the only logical explanation.

This ^ becomes completely meaningless. Creates it's own self-negation while trying to be tautological in a way. It's composed of sideways-jumps and makes a circle back onto itself into meaninglessness.
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 3:46:49 PM
Proof reading my above post tells me that we need to remind ourselves what certain terms mean, for how they'll affect the conversation. I myself used one or two incorrectly once or twice.

sentience - possession of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought. the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

consciousness - the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. having a sense of selfhood.

awareness - knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. the ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, thoughts, emotions, or sensory patterns.[1] In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations. the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria.

(the highlighted segment above may be one defining threshold for some of these discussions)

It seems that none of these words quite express what I'm referring to in the other thread when I talk about the awake "I" within my head, beyond being a bit tautological.
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 33
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:15:27 PM
Drink, seems like you have been in a very bad mood these last few days. Regardless, it's not faith I am talking about, or knowledge or religion. Just logical analysis and a feeling that this could not all have come about spontaneously. For example, evolution did not have to take mankind as far as it has for us to survive. We didn't have to be knocked dead by women with large brown or blue eyes. Why are we able to perceive so much beauty in the world? It's not necessary. . and yet we can and do..almost like the ability to perceive the beauty of a blue sky is a gift.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:19:42 PM
Hey fun!

No one created god.
Just because you can't wrap your head around that, doesn't mean it ain't so.
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 4:40:00 PM

Drink, seems like you have been in a very bad mood these last few days.

How so?? You trying to play a game here by making such a statement? Don't go run and hide behind such claims. Buck up.

Just logical analysis and a feeling that this could not all have come about spontaneously.

Ok, explain that logical analysis. And maybe explain that feeling too.

evolution did not have to take mankind as far as it has for us to survive

Whether or not evolution had to take us as far as it did for us to survive has no bearing on whether or not this "all came about spontaneously", whatever that means.

Why are we able to perceive so much beauty in the world? It's not necessary

So? So what if it's not necessary? I think that you are hung-up on a simpleton idea of evolution just being about survival.

Realize that the beauty is in our eyes. The eyes of the beholder.

The beauty is there because we have certain values. We value certain things, and call that beauty. And this is very subjective too. "There's no accounting for taste". We didn't have to be knocked dead by women with large brown or blue eyes, but it's very easy to see that the evolutionary mechanisms would result in us judging all kinds of things to be beautiful, because of some arbitrary value that we place on them, such as large brown or blue eyes. And even if evolution isn't responsible for me loving large brown or blue eyes, and I choose to call some things more pretty than other things for reasons having nothing to do with survival or procreation...I don't see how this has any bearing at all on whether or not there is a god or evolution really happens.

the ability to perceive the beauty of a blue sky is a gift

Yes, I guess that you could say that it is a "gift". But a gift from where? Some god, or evolution that taught you that a blue sky has value? The sky is blue if you're not seeing it (unless you talk to certain scientists)...but is it intrinsically "beautiful" if we were never here to see it?

You can judge, perceive, and appreciate that the garden is beautiful without then having to conjure up imaginary fairies that dance around in it also because you somehow need to go one step too far to justify or legitimize the garden's beauty.

I can tell that you haven't put much real thought into this.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:19:04 PM
armeself:
Even if the universe was created an almost infinetinfinet amount of time ago, that same statement would still apply, what was god doing all that time up until creation!
The simple answer is, there was no time before creation.


This is actually a good way to think about the non-theistic version of the universe as well. There was no time before the Big Expansion (or whatever one wants to call it). Nor was there Space. Therefore, trying to imagine it as a something expanding into a something else, over a period of time, isn't accurate.

As for the wonderful "balance" that aprillikes talked about, that also "explains itself" in the non-theistic approach. The reason why everything here works with each other as it does, is because it came into existence as a part of this universe. The reason why there is food we can eat without dying could be explained by a loving god saying it should be so, but it can also be recognized as the natural result of the fact that the only reason why we could live long enough to evolve into what we are, is because there was food to eat. Any creature which evolved to find what is here poisonous, died out and is no more. In the same way, if we to rapidly damage and poison our planet, such that we can't biologically evolve and adapt to "eat the now poison food," then we will cease to exist as well, just as some previous creatures ceased to exist.

In short, nature does not require an outside entity to balance it. It balances itself, by killing off anything that doesn't match properly.

But by the way, there is absolutely no reason why the Theory of the Big Expansion and the Theory of Evolution and so on, could not be seen as being identical to the will of a god. As I learned from reading many religious works, man does not dictate what tools and methods a god chooses to use.
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 37
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:20:39 PM
Actually I have put a lot of thought into this and have read the various publications by the best known atheists, for example having read God is not Great, having read Hawkings the Grand Design, reading all of the scientific explanations for our universe that sometimes change yearly as published in Scientific American excetera.

In the end I have concluded there is simply too much, too many variables that have come together to create the world we live in and I do believe it is more than a coincidence.

There is no reason I should be here, now, conscious, writing this out of all the souls who have never lived. WHat makes me and you different? Why are we here in the now in this time and place? It's a feeling.
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 5:48:12 PM
Politicallyright:

Look at what I said -

I can tell that you haven't put much real thought into this.

Not thought, but real thought.

Actually I have put a lot of thought into this and have read the various publications by the best known atheists, for example having read God is not Great, having read Hawkings the Grand Design, reading all of the scientific explanations for our universe that sometimes change yearly as published in Scientific American excetera.

In the end I have concluded there is simply too much, too many variables that have come together to create the world we live in and I do believe it is more than a coincidence.

There is no reason I should be here, now, conscious, writing this out of all the souls who have never lived. WHat makes me and you different? Why are we here in the now in this time and place? It's a feeling.

That you said all this ^ and how you say it shows that you haven't. And you don't seem to see what's wrong with what you're saying and how you're saying it.

So c'mon man. You can do better. Just try.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 6:58:32 PM
Politicallycorrect,

I caught what you said about the so called scientific ideas changing all the time.

Your thinking is fine.

Organised religion and so called science are wrong about many things.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 40
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 1/31/2016 7:01:51 PM
#19 Cress


I have not made that mistake (in conflating belief with knowledge).


But here is what you said:

"So, why the rush to believe? What purpous does it serve to believe one way or the other, other than to make one's self feel better with FALSE KNOWLEDGE."

The notion of "false knowledge" is a mis-nomer or just flat out erroneous. You either have knowledge of something or you don't. Yes, you can fool yourself by making yourself think you know something that you really don't but that is just self deception. Therefore, if you soundly realize that you do not have knowledge (partial or full) of something; what you should more appropriately say: is that believing "one way or another" is done for the purpose of making you "feel better" about something that you DO NOT KNOW. Hence, the reason why you conflate is that you are relating belief to false knowledge, simply because some pple have believed (by self deception or by the deception of others) things that are not factual.

Thus, I'll repeat my example:

The reason why you board the plane is that you BELIEVE that it will get you to your intended destination (though other things are possible); because you have no other way to KNOW it beforehand (regardless of your past experiences and familiarity with air-travel). Believing that the plane will get you to your destination, will do more than just "comfort" you; it will serve as the impetus for you to get on board. If the possibility of the plane crashing does not create any significant discomfort; then it is because you BELIEVE that there is a good likelyhood that this will NOT happen (which based on flight safety stats, it is not an irrational belief to hold)!


That the plane has taken me to my destination or not is a fact,


It becomes as FACT only when you get there (or not). Prior to that, you are operating by a belief system. A belief system either by your own account in that you've personally inspected the inner working of the craft, and found sufficient evidence to believe you will arrive intact; or you believe it because you took the word of airline company that the plane was fit to fly; or just simply by accepting the inferential flight statistics which demonstrate that in all probability, the plane will arrive safely to its destination.

So, you can now say:

You believe that the Universe came into being all by itself (on its own); because saying so makes you "feel good" about something that can't be known by scientific investigation. Like-wise, somebody else might say that the Universe came into being by an act of god, because saying so makes him "feel good" about something that cannot be known by scientific investigation.


putting that belief out there for others to imitate, especially when one holds great influence over others as a celebrated scholar, is self serving, irresponsible, and arrogant.


So you are saying that because of his longstanding prominence, he should have not veered away even if he came upon something (that challenged him axiomatically) which was not congruent with his erstwhile atheistic position.


but all it does for those left in his wake is cause unnecessary problems.


Unless those of your ilk are willing to accept the challenge of methodically dispelling what he expounded, and thereby re-affirming your stance.


```````````````````````````````````

#21 igor


Actually, as most people do, you aren't grasping WHAT is expanding. It isn't STUFF, expanding INTO an already existing space. It is EXISTENCE ITSELF expanding.


I fully agree with this ^ statement by Igor.
You don't have to have or make a place for stuff to expand into; when you have nothingness becoming somethingness!

``````````````````````````````````````````

#22 cress


Even your statement "it is existence itself" holds very little meaning, and I would challenge you to clearly define it for me.


Its not that hard!
Existence is the something that comes from nothing.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

#31 Drink says


it would be interesting and maybe helpful to learn everything about Antony Flew and what he's said about things...but I think that a question needs to be asked here --Does the fact alone that he had a particular opinion, or change of opinion, at all demonstrate that those opinions are accurate or true?


Who is talking about truth?
We are talking about beliefs!


Do we embrace opinions of others, say Einstein for example, simply because they are opinions of Einstein (dogmatically), or because of more than that?


Much of what AE has stated is fact in retrospect but this is not directly relevant to this discussion.


Please don't start this boo hoo crap. You come in here and say things. That's how that works. That's what this place is for. But when it's about science, you are required to be responsible about what you say and back it up or defend it if you might be full of crap and someone else challenges you. So you shouldn't whine about that and unfairly mischaracterize those who do exactly what we should be doing when discussing scientific topics - and hell, on any topic for that matter. Any topic at all...even when talking about relationship or sex stuff in other threads, if it seems like you might be full of crap, someone should beg-to-differ, and you should be able to handle that.


Oh I see!

I should be able to "handle it" just like you handle it when it gets factually explained to you (on past threads) that it isn't religion (as you've often posited) that is inherently evil, but rather the nature of humans who've used various social constructs (religious or secular) to commit heinous acts or atrocities. And you've "handled it" by offering glib dismissals (if not inline with your thinking) at the very least; to outright use of disparaging/clownish remarks and statements at your worst.

But I guess none of what you wrote in the above caption applies to you!


But your opinion might get stomped on because of WHY you hold the opinion and you not being able or willing to explain it.


repeat this ^ to yourself while looking in the mirror!
 Ed Bear
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 7:04:28 AM
Science gets things wrong, admits its mistakes and keeps looking. (Though not all scientists do, of course.)

Religion and belief value faith, not doubt, though, and often tell us not to ask. Even so, most believers have crises of conscience at some point in their lives, and Jesus is said to have addressed Doubting Thomas' doubts seriously, with physcial proof: "Stick your hands in my wounds."

Most of the Big Questions have been dealt with by centuries of careful thinkers, believers and non-believers, and they often come to the conclusion that "Some Things Must Be Accepted" or "Existence or Non-Existence of God Makes No Change in the World." Free will, why god feels it necessary to test people, or create bad things, and the like.

But every scientist knows that the Big Bang theory makes no claims about what happened before the Big Bang; it just says that, if one enters a room where everyone is fleeing the centre of the room, someone probably pulled out a gun or dropped a f^rt in the middle. We don't know how they got gathered in the middle of the room, or how they came to exist at all.

Every scientist knows (once they've worked their way through epistemology) that the universe exists, but nobody knows what it exists in, or if it is itself, or if it had a beginning or an end. (Note that the COSMOS as we know it arises from the Big Bang, but that is not the universe, which contains the cosmos.)

As the universe is defined as EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, we have defined it as not existing in something. But that's a problem with the word, not the world.

In seeking god to explain the creation of the universe, we answer nothing; we simply replace the question "Who or what created the universe?" by "Who or what created god?" If we say that "God has always existed," we may as well accept that "The universe has always existed," and save ourselves a lot of words and worry.

Before anyone starts waving the bible or attacking it, we KNOW who wrote the bible - a bunch of ancient Jews, and the editors (Council of Nicea et al.) who picked and assembled the writings. And a lot of translators and axe-grinders basically telling the world, "That man over there told you not to touch the toys!" There is nothing that can be considered evidence that the bible is revealed and infallible truth, particularly with all the versions and revisions it has engendered.

I was an agnostic for a very long time, but by the time I got to university I realized that:
a) if the existence of god made no difference in my life or the universe, there was no point in believing in it or letting people control my life on its behalf.
b) it was necessary to twist my mind into complex knots and improbabilities to fit god into the universe, and produced no detectable improvement in my life or the universe's.

Today, I can honestly say I can't prove that there is no god, or that he didn't create the universe. But the edifice built upon theism is self-serving and unfalsifiable; arguing further is frustrating, and in any case even most theists acknowledge that god may exist but not as anything that steers our life.

I don't need to spend much of my time belabouring this, because it has absolutely no effect on my life of the universe, and there is ample evidence that most (but not provably all) arguments for religion are efforts to turn me into a tool by someone else.

Unlike our Original Poster, I find no difficulty seeing that Murphy's law, in its general sense, applies here. Now, there WAS a real Murphy, and he was an engineer, and he taught that "If you design a cable that can be plugged in the wrong say, sooner or later someone is going to plug it in the wrong way."

The full mathematical sense of this is: "The probability of any even with a non-zero finite probability occurring approaches unity (one, or certainty) as the amount of time increases to infinity."

The meaning of this is: The universe is so immense, and so full of particles, stars, gases, forces, beings and (add everything that we know to exist, but not god) that, given enough time, it is VERY probable - indeed, almost certain - that the improbable universe we perceive could develop. That is has a non-zero finite probability of occurring is... well, it HAS occurred! We only need the one example to know that. Did it come to exist by action of a creator? We completely lack such evidence. We don't even have one example of a god existing, or a consistent idea of how one could exist.

And if we did, we still wouldn't know what created it.

If anyone can't accept that chance and time and many, many, many, (...) many, many instances over endless aeons make almost anything probable, one is free to believe in god.

Just don't expect me to not touch the toys because you say so.
ED BEAR
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 42
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 7:33:24 AM
^^^^^^^ I am not religious. I do not believe in thought control or people control. I am well aware of the argument that given enough time and space, the almost impossible becomes a certainty. That of course is the ultimate argument against God. That Our Universe is but one of an infinite number and we happen to live in a Universe that allows for our forms of Life. But our Universe is only a little over 14 billion years old. Our Life, the mathematical precision of the Laws of Physics (although now some argue that further out . . . the laws are not laws . . that light travels at different speeds, etc), the probability the Universe was created from a Singularity (although even that is now being challenged) . . . I simply do not believe it all happened by chance and that you and I are here to observe it. And yes, there are theories that we are here to observe, just like somehow at the quantum level, our observations can have an effect on particles.

You are of course correct. In the end, our life will go on, probably randomly, regardless of the existence of a God or not. We will never know the truth. None of us. The truth is simply way beyond our capabilities. We will Never even be able to prove that we live in but one of an infinite number of universes. The complexity of all of this itself speaks of some sort of all knowing entity behind it does it not?
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 43
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 10:22:46 AM

Posted By: Politicallyright
Pure speculation. Nobody knows, just like nobody knows how or why our universe came into existence.

..er...you do realize that you just contradicted every one of your posts with that statement ..


Posted By: drinkthesunwithmyface
Addressing this as having intelligence without a brain instead of having sentience/consciousness without a brain...we need to remember how we define the phenomena of intelligence. What we're talking about with that word. This shows us that a 'brain' as we casually think of 'brain' isn't required. Your immune system, for example, is very intelligent...it "thinks"...a brain, but a very different type of 'brain'.

my take on that has always been that.. "you are but the sum of your memories" ...funches 3:16

the question becomes if you were to take an average/semi-sane person and remove all of their memories what would they therefore now lack or no longer considered to be ...consciousness, sentient, intelligent, self-aware, none

if you were to reverse the process and add similar memory to a computer would it be capable of becoming self-aware and would it therefore have a "soul"


Posted By: aremeself
Hey fun!
No one created god.

I'm curious as to how you know this?....did a burning bush tell you


Posted By: Politicallyright
I am not religious.

you keep saying that but if you're going around claiming that God created the Universe...then you're preaching from the Bible ...and that makes you religious ..because you're spreading the word of The Almighty ..can I get a witness


Posted By: Politicallyright
I do not believe in thought control or people control.

but yet you claim that consciousness is a result of Divine Intervention ....imagine if consciousness was a result of government intervention...wouldn't you think "thought control" or "pod people"
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 44
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 10:48:15 AM

..er...you do realize that you just contradicted every one of your posts with that statement ..


I think it pretty obvious that when I say absolutely there is a God, that I am stating a Strong opinion. It is just as obvious that none of us can know anything for sure . Hope that helps.


you keep saying that but if you're going around claiming that God created the Universe...then you're preaching from the Bible ...and that makes you religious ..because you're spreading the word of The Almighty ..can I get a witness


Really? Can you cite anything I have said that has anything to do with the Bible or organized religion or any religion in any way, shape or form? Can you cite anything I have said in which I have instructed anyone what God expects of them if anything at all, whether God even concerns himself with mankind in the least?

You, like many, do not understand the difference between religion and a belief in some sort of higher power . . . maybe because you don't understand what religion is?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 45
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 4:05:20 PM
#42


None of us. The truth is simply way beyond our capabilities. We will Never even be able to prove that we live in but one of an infinite number of universes.


^ agreed!

Not only that, as I don't even think we can prove our own existence! Who is to say that we aren't some 3D hologram in someone's mind (natural or artificial).


The complexity of all of this itself speaks of some sort of all knowing entity behind it does it not?


That is what Antony Flew concluded; but what if I say that this "all knowing entity" could very well be in us!
In that we are the physical manifestation of such an entity, as having approached "certainty".
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/1/2016 7:11:02 PM
Yule...is all that bullshit really necessary?

politicallyright:

The complexity of all of this itself speaks of some sort of all knowing entity behind it does it not?

I'd like for you to tell me how it speaks of it.

funchesf:

I'll agree that memories, knowledge, and perception create the sense of awareness and consciousness...but, harkening back to my jabber on this subject, I'm not really thinking or saying that something else is going on there, as in a supernatural element or soul as defined thus, but really just that the experience of MY consciousness and being HERE looking out from WITHIN (versus observing others from outside them) intrigues me such that it doesn't quite seem explained.

politicallyright:

...the difference between religion and a belief in some sort of higher power...

My take on this is that Religion, upper case and proper noun, refers to specific formal identities...however, ultimately religion is any form at all of a certain degree of intellectually irresponsible belief, non skepticism, dogmatism, etc. If you have a BELIEF in some sort of higher power, and use pseudo-scientific or unexamined "reasoning" to justify it, then you are religious.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 47
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/2/2016 6:16:48 AM
^



Yule...is all that bullshit really necessary?


you can dish it out but you can't take it very well, can you!
Anything you don't wish to deal with is all BS to you!
Typical militant stance!


and use pseudo-scientific or unexamined "reasoning"


Who is the judge on whether the "reasoning" being employed is pseudo-scientific or unexamined?....somebody like you!
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 48
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/2/2016 7:27:10 AM

Posted By: politicallyright
I think it pretty obvious that when I say absolutely there is a God, that I am stating a Strong opinion.

what's the difference between a Strong opinion and a regular old opinion? ...a Strong opinion implies Extremism


Posted By: politicallyright
It is just as obvious that none of us can know anything for sure . Hope that helps.

if no one knows...then how is it that you can claim that you absolutely know ...see how you keep contradicting your own posts


Posted By: politicallyright
Really? Can you cite anything I have said that has anything to do with the Bible or organized religion or any religion in any way, shape or form?

you're claiming that God created the Universe ....isn't that the very first passage in the Bible


Posted By: politicallyright
Can you cite anything I have said in which I have instructed anyone what God expects of them if anything at all, whether God even concerns himself with mankind in the least?

you claim that God created consciousness...wouldn't that constitute as concerning himself with Mankind


Posted By: politicallyright
You, like many, do not understand the difference between religion and a belief in some sort of higher power

is there a difference?....especially since religion constitute the laws, commandments and the rules of the road handed down by a "higher power" ..


Posted By: politicallyright
maybe because you don't understand what religion is?

of perhaps it may be you that don't realize that all you're doing in the thread is preaching religion while in the same breath claiming that you're not religious

if you choose to believe in a higher power, then why call it God....why not call it Zandor and that Zandor created the Universe ...but to do so would make you sounds "nuts" ...so instead you choose to call the higher power a religious deity called God, because the term God in society is an acceptable delusion ....and this is why everything you thereafter choose to say about that Deity you call God makes you sound like a Bible Thumper

it's impossible to have a belief in God without being religious....funches 3:16


Posted By: Yule_liquor
Not only that, as I don't even think we can prove our own existence! Who is to say that we aren't some 3D hologram in someone's mind (natural or artificial).

to question or doubt one's own existence...falls into the realm of paranoid delusion

the only absolute truth is the existence of yourself to yourself because everything or anything else could be a delusion ......funches 3:16
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 49
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/2/2016 5:45:05 PM
#48 ^


to question or doubt one's own existence...falls into the realm of paranoid delusion


On the outside chance that you might actually have an interest in better understanding the Holographic paradigm, I have put up some links for your edification. You may wanna start first with:

www. crystalinks.com/holographic.htlm

which gives a very basic preview, then you can go on:

www. rense.com/general69/holoff.htm

To get some prospective of how it has fallen in place and what it portends, then onto

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/there-is-growing-evidence-that-our-universe-is-a-giant-hologram

you can also go on wiki as well.


the only absolute truth is the existence of yourself to yourself because everything or anything else could be a delusion ......funches 3:16


If and when you ever come to understand that "absolute truth" is something that is unattainable to any of us in this realm, you might then realize just how inane many of your statements really are.
 politicallyright
Joined: 1/26/2016
Msg: 50
Absolutely there is a God.
Posted: 2/3/2016 8:51:10 AM

If you have a BELIEF in some sort of higher power, and use pseudo-scientific or unexamined "reasoning" to justify it, then you are religious.


I am a little surprised at you Drink. I have read your posts in the past and usually you are far more intellectual in what you have to say, far more reasonable and rational. My "reasoning" is not "unexamined" or "pseudo-scientific" to justify anything. I know as much or more about the science as anybody here other than actual theoretical physicists. I am not claiming I can do the math . . that is far above my ability . . but I know the various theories out there . . am well familiar with the quantum world etc.

I have drawn my conclusions based on what I know . . but more importantly, there is so much we do not know.

For example. I have heard of "Darwin" and the Theory of Evolution. I am familiar with older fossils that are taking man's ancestors far farther back in time than just Lucy.

But you know what . . . . I still don't believe all of the species of life are based solely on evolution. I just believe there has to be more to it than that. My right to believe what I want. Doesn't make my "reasoning" inferior to your own.

As for religion, you can define it as you want. I define it to mean people who believe in a particular system of faith and worship. I completely reject organized religion, the bible, or any theory that mankind could possibly know "god" what or who he is or what he wants of mankind if anything at all. It is very possible this creative force never had any direct cause with creating man other than laying the seeds.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Absolutely there is a God.