Is There a God?

[The Truth and Light]

I have no idea why atheists are bringing up the big bang, except to divert the attention of the posters. The Big Bang, if it existed (as it well might) could disprove creationism, but is unrelated to the question of God and to this discussion. God could simply have made the universe with the Big Bang and developed it with evolution. Even so, where could have the Big Bang come from? Most educated people would find the idea of a giant puff of hydrogen occurring out of nowhere and for no reason preposterous compared to the idea of an eternal, all-perfect Creator. Everything in science indicates that something is always caused by another, which in turn is caused by something else. Sooner or later there must be a First Cause, and atheistic scientists have failed to provide information as to what that could be. It is not the theists who refuse to listen to the voice of reason.

What is the First Cause for God?

I don't believe there can be a first cause. Time is eternal, both back and forth, and so are the causes and effects.

[Person012345]

I don't believe there can be a first cause. Time is eternal, both back and forth, and so are the causes and effects.

I don't believe that time is eternal necessarily, you would need to demonstrate that to be true.

[The Truth and Light]

I don't believe there can be a first cause. Time is eternal, both back and forth, and so are the causes and effects.

I don't believe that time is eternal necessarily, you would need to demonstrate that to be true.

Maybe I will someday. For now it's just a possiblity held in my head, since atheists and theists argue about the first cause, and about the beginning of time, and I'm starting to question the reality of both.

[Fontoria]

I belive there is one god, but Thor and that lot existed aswell! Not as gods though.

I belive Thor, Mohhamed, Jesus, and other Norse gods are messengers to spread the word of god (like the islam faith belives) and that god gave them powers (IE Thor to control thunder, Jesus to do healing and general amazing stuff and so on) so they could prove themselves to be what they say they are.

I have a similar belief. I believe God is the one true God and Jesus is the Messiah, but the other gods were extraterrestrials who did not sin, so they were perfect and taught the humans. I think God told them to leave Earth because he did not want these ancient aliens to be tainted with sin.

That IS pretey simular to my belief! But yeah, I belive that Jesus is still gods son, and was a messanger like Mohhamed and Thor. I suppose Jesus got extra powers than thor and that lot because he's gods son.

Also, why does the bible say sex is bad?

[Zottistan]

I have a similar belief. I believe God is the one true God and Jesus is the Messiah, but the other gods were extraterrestrials who did not sin, so they were perfect and taught the humans. I think God told them to leave Earth because he did not want these ancient aliens to be tainted with sin.

That IS pretey simular to my belief! But yeah, I belive that Jesus is still gods son, and was a messanger like Mohhamed and Thor. I suppose Jesus got extra powers than thor and that lot because he's gods son.

Also, why does the bible say sex is bad?

Because it is, duh. God didn't put us here to enjoy ourselves, you know.

[CTALNH]

The Existentialist says: I am lost so I exist.

The Materialist says: I am composed of matter so I exist.

The Rationalist says: I think so that means I exist.

The Sceptist says: Where the f### am I?


"To be is to do" says Kant

"To do is to be" says a Nietzsche

"Do be Do be Do be" says Scooby do

[Person012345]

Fascinating.

[Samuraikoku]

I don't believe there can be a first cause. Time is eternal, both back and forth, and so are the causes and effects.

And why can't that be the same for the universe itself, eliminating God?

[Fontoria]

That IS pretey simular to my belief! But yeah, I belive that Jesus is still gods son, and was a messanger like Mohhamed and Thor. I suppose Jesus got extra powers than thor and that lot because he's gods son.

Also, why does the bible say sex is bad?

Because it is, duh. God didn't put us here to enjoy ourselves, you know.

lol!

[The Truth and Light]

I don't believe there can be a first cause. Time is eternal, both back and forth, and so are the causes and effects.

And why can't that be the same for the universe itself, eliminating God?

Possibly. I'm open to the idea that God had a cause. No Abrahamic religion dares entertain this idea, however.

[Leepaidamba]

I don't believe that time is eternal necessarily, you would need to demonstrate that to be true.

Maybe I will someday. For now it's just a possiblity held in my head, since atheists and theists argue about the first cause, and about the beginning of time, and I'm starting to question the reality of both.

If time is not eternal, there was a time when time did not exist. For there to have been such a time, time would have to exist, therefore time is eternal.
I think the more important and clearly defined question "did time have a beginning?" is a lot more interesting than these sorts of wordgames. Time, as I see it, is defined by occurences: if nothing happens, no time passes. That means that if everything came from nothing, that nothing existed for no time and therefore also that everything has always existed, yet it also has a beginning.

[Dollarion]

Maybe I will someday. For now it's just a possiblity held in my head, since atheists and theists argue about the first cause, and about the beginning of time, and I'm starting to question the reality of both.

If time is not eternal, there was a time when time did not exist. For there to have been such a time, time would have to exist, therefore time is eternal.
I think the more important and clearly defined question "did time have a beginning?" is a lot more interesting than these sorts of wordgames. Time, as I see it, is defined by occurences: if nothing happens, no time passes. That means that if everything came from nothing, that nothing existed for no time and therefore also that everything has always existed, yet it also has a beginning.

Clever

[Person012345]

Maybe I will someday. For now it's just a possiblity held in my head, since atheists and theists argue about the first cause, and about the beginning of time, and I'm starting to question the reality of both.

If time is not eternal, there was a time when time did not exist. For there to have been such a time, time would have to exist, therefore time is eternal.
I think the more important and clearly defined question "did time have a beginning?" is a lot more interesting than these sorts of wordgames. Time, as I see it, is defined by occurences: if nothing happens, no time passes. That means that if everything came from nothing, that nothing existed for no time and therefore also that everything has always existed, yet it also has a beginning.

Uh, no. If time did not exist then by definition there is no time. You can't say "a time when time didn't exist". That makes no sense. Asking "did time have a beginning" is the same as asking is time eternal, that's not word games. And I agree with your idea of what time is. Time is things happening. Have things happened eternally? I don't know, although it's hard to understand how that could be possible that doesn't mean it isn't. If they haven't, then time is not eternal.

[Xathranaar]

Because we are not superior to God. That is why Satan was kicked out of Heaven, he had pride and tried to overthrow God.

Satan was waaayyyy fucking better than god.

This guy found a mindless naked slavewoman and taught her FREE THOUGHT. That's pretty damn good in my book.

I'm just going to have to quote that.

[The Daktanese Technocracy]

Satan was waaayyyy fucking better than god.

This guy found a mindless naked slavewoman and taught her FREE THOUGHT. That's pretty damn good in my book.

I'm just going to have to quote that.

Hahaha, thanks

[Nordengrund]

I am pretty sure there is a God. Though I firmly hold this belief, if I was not Christian, I would most likely be a Jew or a Deist.

[Divair]

The Existentialist says: I am lost so I exist.

The Materialist says: I am composed of matter so I exist.

The Rationalist says: I think so that means I exist.

The Sceptist says: Where the f### am I?


"To be is to do" says Kant

"To do is to be" says a Nietzsche

"Do be Do be Do be" says Scooby do

In other words: Spam.

[Seleucas]

No, but it's nice to pretend there is one.

[Llyddfyd]

Is there a God? God is a necessity, to make sense of Free Will. Not Free Will in a Libertarian Sense, as those who attack Free Will falsely describe, but Free Will in a Compatiblist sense, that is to say, even if you are determined to something, you can still do that other- For example, suppose that the world around me makes me such that I choose apple pie over pumpkin pie at that moment, yet, I could have choosen pumpkin pie, ultimately, I willed myself to choose apple pie. Kant called this a wretched subterfuge, he, however, had to resort to sketchy metaphysics and a transphysical world to accomedate the fact that, yes, the physical world is controlled by deterministic laws, but, no, we are exempt by virtue of magical world that transcend normal laws of Physics. Compatiblism, on the otherhand, does not have this problem, because it understands that Free Will is not, as the Libertarians and the Hard Determists say, contradictory to the notion that the world is determined.

Why, then, need God to make sense of it? Because, if determinism is true, it is ultimately not up to us, but on factors outside of us, but if determinism is not true, and indeterminism is true, then it is still not up to us, and up to some form of randomness. One can turn to hard determinism, but, there is no reason to believe in hard determinism, because Hard Determinism is based upon a faulty and primitive view of science which cannot account for the randomness of Darwinian evolution or the indeterminsim of Quantum Mechanics, and Neuro-Science has yet to show that quantum mechanics does not apply to the brain. Indeed, Hard Determinism, in my view, is inadequet because it cannot explain creativity. In addition, we intuitively know that we have free will, and the proof of it is in our imagination, which shows a creativity that cannot originate from Deterministic laws. Thus, to make sense of what we know to be true, we must posit the existence of God, who necessarily exist to make Freedom and Determinism compatible.

Does anyone know for sure that God doesn't exist? At the present moment, no, and, if there is necessity to believe in something, and there is no proof either against or for something, can we not, as with the great American Philosopher William James, agree that we can and should believe in it?

[Lilliburlero (Ancient)]

No, there are Gods. You folks and your Monotheistic, Abrahamic, and Western European Christian biases.

[Ikiomatsu]

Personally, I think religion is just another reason for people to hate each other, I will never believe in any divine being, but if others want to, I'm fine with that.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Is there a God? God is a necessity, to make sense of Free Will. Not Free Will in a Libertarian Sense, as those who attack Free Will falsely describe, but Free Will in a Compatiblist sense, that is to say, even if you are determined to something, you can still do that other- For example, suppose that the world around me makes me such that I choose apple pie over pumpkin pie at that moment, yet, I could have choosen pumpkin pie, ultimately, I willed myself to choose apple pie. Kant called this a wretched subterfuge, he, however, had to resort to sketchy metaphysics and a transphysical world to accomedate the fact that, yes, the physical world is controlled by deterministic laws, but, no, we are exempt by virtue of magical world that transcend normal laws of Physics. Compatiblism, on the otherhand, does not have this problem, because it understands that Free Will is not, as the Libertarians and the Hard Determists say, contradictory to the notion that the world is determined.

Why, then, need God to make sense of it? Because, if determinism is true, it is ultimately not up to us, but on factors outside of us, but if determinism is not true, and indeterminism is true, then it is still not up to us, and up to some form of randomness. One can turn to hard determinism, but, there is no reason to believe in hard determinism, because Hard Determinism is based upon a faulty and primitive view of science which cannot account for the randomness of Darwinian evolution or the indeterminsim of Quantum Mechanics, and Neuro-Science has yet to show that quantum mechanics does not apply to the brain. Indeed, Hard Determinism, in my view, is inadequet because it cannot explain creativity. In addition, we intuitively know that we have free will, and the proof of it is in our imagination, which shows a creativity that cannot originate from Deterministic laws. Thus, to make sense of what we know to be true, we must posit the existence of God, who necessarily exist to make Freedom and Determinism compatible.

Does anyone know for sure that God doesn't exist? At the present moment, no, and, if there is necessity to believe in something, and there is no proof either against or for something, can we not, as with the great American Philosopher William James, agree that we can and should believe in it?

1: No, it isn't necessary. Furthermore, that entire paragraph can be restated as "If we don't have free will because of god, I'll be sad. I don't want to be sad. Therefore we have free will because of god."

2: So, god = randomness? Okay. By the way, pancake now means zombie and to have sex means to go seal clubbing. God does not mean randomness. God means a deity.

3: Evolution is NOT random in the slightest.

4: Neuroscientists needn't prove that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to it. You need to prove that it does.

5: If we don't have god, you'll be sad. You don't want to be sad. Therefore, god.

6: What the fuck? That guy's a great philosopher? If there's no evidence for a claim, you don't default to believing in it.^[1] If there's no evidence, you use the null hypothesis and assume that it is false unless evidence comes up. Otherwise, you may as well believe in almost everything. Leprechauns? Yep. Yahweh? Yep. Zeus? Yep. Thor? Yep. Ra? Yep. Ba'al? Yep. Stargates? Yep.

^{[1]: As described in his excellent book "How I escaped the dragon unicorns: Science" by undead Elvis.}

[Llyddfyd]

Is there a God? God is a necessity, to make sense of Free Will. Not Free Will in a Libertarian Sense, as those who attack Free Will falsely describe, but Free Will in a Compatiblist sense, that is to say, even if you are determined to something, you can still do that other- For example, suppose that the world around me makes me such that I choose apple pie over pumpkin pie at that moment, yet, I could have choosen pumpkin pie, ultimately, I willed myself to choose apple pie. Kant called this a wretched subterfuge, he, however, had to resort to sketchy metaphysics and a transphysical world to accomedate the fact that, yes, the physical world is controlled by deterministic laws, but, no, we are exempt by virtue of magical world that transcend normal laws of Physics. Compatiblism, on the otherhand, does not have this problem, because it understands that Free Will is not, as the Libertarians and the Hard Determists say, contradictory to the notion that the world is determined.

Why, then, need God to make sense of it? Because, if determinism is true, it is ultimately not up to us, but on factors outside of us, but if determinism is not true, and indeterminism is true, then it is still not up to us, and up to some form of randomness. One can turn to hard determinism, but, there is no reason to believe in hard determinism, because Hard Determinism is based upon a faulty and primitive view of science which cannot account for the randomness of Darwinian evolution or the indeterminsim of Quantum Mechanics, and Neuro-Science has yet to show that quantum mechanics does not apply to the brain. Indeed, Hard Determinism, in my view, is inadequet because it cannot explain creativity. In addition, we intuitively know that we have free will, and the proof of it is in our imagination, which shows a creativity that cannot originate from Deterministic laws. Thus, to make sense of what we know to be true, we must posit the existence of God, who necessarily exist to make Freedom and Determinism compatible.

Does anyone know for sure that God doesn't exist? At the present moment, no, and, if there is necessity to believe in something, and there is no proof either against or for something, can we not, as with the great American Philosopher William James, agree that we can and should believe in it?

1: No, it isn't necessary. Furthermore, that entire paragraph can be restated as "If we don't have free will because of god, I'll be sad. I don't want to be sad. Therefore we have free will because of god."

2: So, god = randomness? Okay. By the way, pancake now means zombie and to have sex means to go seal clubbing. God does not mean randomness. God means a deity.

3: Evolution is NOT random in the slightest.

4: Neuroscientists needn't prove that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to it. You need to prove that it does.

5: If we don't have god, you'll be sad. You don't want to be sad. Therefore, god.

6: What the fuck? That guy's a great philosopher? If there's no evidence for a claim, you don't default to believing in it.^[1] If there's no evidence, you use the null hypothesis and assume that it is false unless evidence comes up. Otherwise, you may as well believe in almost everything. Leprechauns? Yep. Yahweh? Yep. Zeus? Yep. Thor? Yep. Ra? Yep. Ba'al? Yep. Stargates? Yep.

^{[1]: As described in his excellent book "How I escaped the dragon unicorns: Science" by undead Elvis.}

I would respond seriously if there was any more to this than facile sarcasm and vacuous mockery.

[Cannot think of a name]

You know what is worse, it turns out, than having your cynical smug assumptions verified? Having them not be verified...

...I was certain that after 233 pages I would click on the last page and see nothing more than people going, "Prove it" "No, you prove it."

But are any of you doing that here on this page? No. No, you're having a polite and seemingly reasoned existential conversation about the nature of time...

Fine.

I'll just take my apparently ill-earned since of superiority and my smug little post I was going to make affirming that and go...do something else...I guess...


Jerks.

[Tlaceceyaya]

1: No, it isn't necessary. Furthermore, that entire paragraph can be restated as "If we don't have free will because of god, I'll be sad. I don't want to be sad. Therefore we have free will because of god."

2: So, god = randomness? Okay. By the way, pancake now means zombie and to have sex means to go seal clubbing. God does not mean randomness. God means a deity.

3: Evolution is NOT random in the slightest.

4: Neuroscientists needn't prove that quantum mechanics doesn't apply to it. You need to prove that it does.

5: If we don't have god, you'll be sad. You don't want to be sad. Therefore, god.

6: What the fuck? That guy's a great philosopher? If there's no evidence for a claim, you don't default to believing in it.^[1] If there's no evidence, you use the null hypothesis and assume that it is false unless evidence comes up. Otherwise, you may as well believe in almost everything. Leprechauns? Yep. Yahweh? Yep. Zeus? Yep. Thor? Yep. Ra? Yep. Ba'al? Yep. Stargates? Yep.

^{[1]: As described in his excellent book "How I escaped the dragon unicorns: Science" by undead Elvis.}

I would respond seriously if there was any more to this than facile sarcasm and vacuous mockery.

Okay. Remove the okay and the sentence after it from #2 and remove the undead elvis part and you lose all of the sarcasm, but keep an SMBC reference and a Stargate reference.