Is There a God?

[Moving Forward Inc]

Is There a God?

It depends on how you define god. My agnostic atheist beliefs have changed a lot recently.

Now of course I don't believe in the Abrahamic omni-benevolent god that is a personal being and is watching you at all times, it's considered insane to think that somewhere there is a good guy looking out for you and you just can't see him.
I also refuse to believe that if there were a god he would be a physical being, if so he would be subject to laws of science and therefore just a normal object/animal/person.
Because the idea of a spiritual world is silly, we would have to say God is abstract.
What is abstract? Thoughts? They are made out of chemical reactions in our brains. Perhaps laws of science? They are not a physical object anywhere yet one asteroid weighing 13785 tonnes at -38 degrees in temperature collides with another asteroid weighing 9376 tonnes at 11 degrees and laws of science come into action.
The fact is that a common argument against atheists from Christian's is that everything needs a cause, and therefore God must be the cause of the universe. Atheists will say that it is a scientific fact that such things can happen at any time and have no need for an explanation.
Perhaps God is a law of science that is the cause of the universe and can cause things to happen at any time without a need for an explanation?
This question makes me laugh as Theists are calling out "GOD!" while Atheists are calling it "SCIENCE!" and now I'm finding it hard to see the difference between the two.

[Thisbia]

Is There a God?

It depends on how you define god. My agnostic atheist beliefs have changed a lot recently.

Now of course I don't believe in the Abrahamic omni-benevolent god that is a personal being and is watching you at all times, it's considered insane to think that somewhere there is a good guy looking out for you and you just can't see him.
I also refuse to believe that if there were a god he would be a physical being, if so he would be subject to laws of science and therefore just a normal object/animal/person.
Because the idea of a spiritual world is silly, we would have to say God is abstract.
What is abstract? Thoughts? They are made out of chemical reactions in our brains. Perhaps laws of science? They are not a physical object anywhere yet one asteroid weighing 13785 tonnes at -38 degrees in temperature collides with another asteroid weighing 9376 tonnes at 11 degrees and laws of science come into action.
The fact is that a common argument against atheists from Christian's is that everything needs a cause, and therefore God must be the cause of the universe. Atheists will say that it is a scientific fact that such things can happen at any time and have no need for an explanation.
Perhaps God is a law of science that is the cause of the universe and can cause things to happen at any time without a need for an explanation?
This question makes me laugh as Theists are calling out "GOD!" while Atheists are calling it "SCIENCE!" and now I'm finding it hard to see the difference between the two.

I don't believe there is a difference! Theology is the study of things not scientifically explained yet.

[Mavorpen]

Perhaps God is a law of science that is the cause of the universe and can cause things to happen at any time without a need for an explanation?
This question makes me laugh as Theists are calling out "GOD!" while Atheists are calling it "SCIENCE!" and now I'm finding it hard to see the difference between the two.

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

[Tlaceceyaya]

It depends on how you define god. My agnostic atheist beliefs have changed a lot recently.

Now of course I don't believe in the Abrahamic omni-benevolent god that is a personal being and is watching you at all times, it's considered insane to think that somewhere there is a good guy looking out for you and you just can't see him.
I also refuse to believe that if there were a god he would be a physical being, if so he would be subject to laws of science and therefore just a normal object/animal/person.
Because the idea of a spiritual world is silly, we would have to say God is abstract.
What is abstract? Thoughts? They are made out of chemical reactions in our brains. Perhaps laws of science? They are not a physical object anywhere yet one asteroid weighing 13785 tonnes at -38 degrees in temperature collides with another asteroid weighing 9376 tonnes at 11 degrees and laws of science come into action.
The fact is that a common argument against atheists from Christian's is that everything needs a cause, and therefore God must be the cause of the universe. Atheists will say that it is a scientific fact that such things can happen at any time and have no need for an explanation.
Perhaps God is a law of science that is the cause of the universe and can cause things to happen at any time without a need for an explanation?
This question makes me laugh as Theists are calling out "GOD!" while Atheists are calling it "SCIENCE!" and now I'm finding it hard to see the difference between the two.

I don't believe there is a difference! Theology is the study of things not scientifically explained yet.

So you're saying theology is a waste of time? Any claims made by theology about things science doesn't know about will eventually be scientifically investigated. They will almost certainly be found false. Geocentricity. Creationism. Rainbows as signs from god. Etcetera.

[Socialdemokraterne]

So you're saying theology is a waste of time? Any claims made by theology about things science doesn't know about will eventually be scientifically investigated. They will almost certainly be found false. Geocentricity. Creationism. Rainbows as signs from god. Etcetera.

I always viewed the greater part of theological studies' utility to be found in its capacity to examine individual and group dynamics. I've always thought of theology as a supplement to the social sciences.

[Thisbia]

I don't believe there is a difference! Theology is the study of things not scientifically explained yet.

So you're saying theology is a waste of time? Any claims made by theology about things science doesn't know about will eventually be scientifically investigated. They will almost certainly be found false. Geocentricity. Creationism. Rainbows as signs from god. Etcetera.

I am saying the opposite. We need to explore, evolving through our faith and when a facet of it becomes fundamental and we can grasp all aspects of it even to the point of at least some control - only then does it become science. I need to find you that paragraph in whitcombs book and there is one in the Libre Null. Science and magic are becoming one and the same. Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

[Moving Forward Inc]

I don't believe there is a difference! Theology is the study of things not scientifically explained yet.

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

So you're saying theology is a waste of time? Any claims made by theology about things science doesn't know about will eventually be scientifically investigated. They will almost certainly be found false. Geocentricity. Creationism. Rainbows as signs from god. Etcetera.

The problem we come across here is that trying to find some way of proving or at least giving major evidence of some god that is a scientific law would require I don't know what. it's just that we can't detect the sort of shit I am talking about in a small lab. We would have to go back 14 billion years in time when the big bang just started, and still, no machine that can detect what causes a single spark that comes out of nowhere to happen.

[Mavorpen]

The problem we come across here is that trying to find some way of proving or at least giving major evidence of some god that is a scientific law would require I don't know what. it's just that we can't detect the sort of shit I am talking about in a small lab. We would have to go back 14 billion years in time when the big bang just started, and still, no machine that can detect what causes a single spark that comes out of nowhere to happen.

I'll say it again. No evidence, no reason to take it seriously.

[Thisbia]

Perhaps this interview will help:

http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/ess_petecint.html

[Norstal]

I don't believe there is a difference! Theology is the study of things not scientifically explained yet.

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

So you're saying theology is a waste of time? Any claims made by theology about things science doesn't know about will eventually be scientifically investigated. They will almost certainly be found false. Geocentricity. Creationism. Rainbows as signs from god. Etcetera.

The problem we come across here is that trying to find some way of proving or at least giving major evidence of some god that is a scientific law would require I don't know what. it's just that we can't detect the sort of shit I am talking about in a small lab. We would have to go back 14 billion years in time when the big bang just started, and still, no machine that can detect what causes a single spark that comes out of nowhere to happen.

Actually, my explanation for the universe is that it has always been there and that it doesn't need a creator. It's not science. Science only explains the transitions of one state to the next. The universe could have been like in today's state prior to the Big Bang. But the point is, the universe doesn't require a creator to exist.

[Mavorpen]

Actually, my explanation for the universe is that it has always been there and that it doesn't need a creator. It's not science. Science only explains the transitions of one state to the next. The universe could have been like in today's state prior to the Big Bang. But the point is, the universe doesn't require a creator to exist.

The Inflationary Universe model sheds doubt on the "universe has always been here," hypothesis. Although, eternal inflation solves this by postulating that there is a universe that has always existed that created other, parallel universes. Think of a slice of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the universes and the actual cheese is the space-time of the universe. As this mega-universe expands, it drops packets of matter that itself begins to expand. However, two parallel universes will not meet because the all encompassing universe expands faster than the parallel ones.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

I can only speak of my personal experience. After 12 years of Catholic school, I emerged somewhat jaded. I still believed in God, but not the fear-mongering one I was raised with.

Prayer was still a part of my life and on one particular occasion I decided to go with my then bf on a motorcycle trip from California to Florida. It was a long, grueling experience and every might it would come down to trying to find a hotel/motel room. I would pray to God, freezing my arse off on the back of that motorcycle, to find a room at the next exit. It worked every single time. Even to the point of being in Mobile, Alabama where nearly every hotel room was booked due to a bowling convention. I asked a lady at a gas station if she knew of any other hotels, and she pulled out a phone book, proceeding to call every hotel in there. Shortly thereafter she found one with a room. It was a penthouse suite that they were willing to let us have for $50 because there was a pullout bed in it that night. It was also on this trip that I ended up pregnant and that led to the biggest blessing in my life, my son.

What can I say? I may not adhere strictly to the faith I was raised on, and I've studied a lot of different religions to try and understand the concept of higher power/s, but I think there was more than coincidence at work on the trip.

[Norstal]

Science and magic are becoming one and the same. Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

...What?

[Mavorpen]

Science and magic are becoming one and the same. Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

...What?

[Jewcrew]

Admittedly it isn't a perfect fit, but it still works.

And the whole issue of 'why would something so alien want to, or be able to communicate' makes yet another assumption about the motivations of such a being as a Creator. Why would such a being create a universe in the first place? All we can do is make assumptions.

So, wow. We're back to the start. I question a theistic position held by some that doesn't make sense when looking at the universe as a whole.

You don't actually comment on the position itself, but say a God could still exist even though nothing in the universe suggests it does, or needs to our should, just because by being so smart and alien it could designed the universe in a way that doesn't look like it did, or needed to, or should have.

Yet...

Even using the argument with aliens is ill-advised, as an alien may very well be interested in learning about a viewpoint on a philosophical issue from a creature less intelligent out of curiosity if for nothing else.

Designed the universe in a way that doesn't show it was designed or needed a God, but then is interested in us and communicates with us (until technology advances to a point where we could record it as evidence, then it stops)...

So are you saying all modern religions are wrong?

Nope.

I'm saying trying to understand G-d is pointless.

Whether you want to believe in G-d or not is up to you. I really couldn't care.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I am saying the opposite. We need to explore, evolving through our faith and when a facet of it becomes fundamental and we can grasp all aspects of it even to the point of at least some control - only then does it become science.

That's not what science is. Science is a form of inquiry more than anything else. It is inquiry based on falsifiable hypotheses which are tested by repeatable experimentation. You can assume a deity, but science cannot address that assumption because the hypothesis that deities exist is inherently unfalsifiable. There is no way to test the claim, let alone a way to repeatably do so.

Science and magic are becoming one and the same.

In a way. That which was previously not understood and attributed to supernatural forces can now frequently be explained by the discoveries we've come across through repetitive experimentation and observation. The things which we haven't yet explained may not be attributed to supernatural forces safely because these forces have not been demonstrated to exist by repeatable experimentation, but the phenomenon we attribute to these forces may one day bear an explanation discovered through scientific inquiry.

Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

No, we call the manner in which we examine the behavior of electrons "science". The behavior of electrons is a phenomenon to be scientifically observed, it is not itself science. Also, we've got a pretty good understanding of the behavior of electrons.

[Norstal]

Actually, my explanation for the universe is that it has always been there and that it doesn't need a creator. It's not science. Science only explains the transitions of one state to the next. The universe could have been like in today's state prior to the Big Bang. But the point is, the universe doesn't require a creator to exist.

The Inflationary Universe model sheds doubt on the "universe has always been here," hypothesis. Although, eternal inflation solves this by postulating that there is a universe that has always existed that created other, parallel universes. Think of a slice of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the universes and the actual cheese is the space-time of the universe. As this mega-universe expands, it drops packets of matter that itself begins to expand. However, two parallel universes will not meet because the all encompassing universe expands faster than the parallel ones.

It seems like there's a lot of criticisms with that model, in the Wikipedia page. I won't pretend to known quantum physics so I can't rebuke that, but with these kind of things, we can't really apply science to it. At least not what we currently have. If your explanation is correct though, I still don't see the need for a creator and I'm sure that you'll agree with me.

I'm just saying that in regards to the origin of Life and Everything (TM), I try not to use science to explain it. I use critical thinking instead.

[Jewcrew]

Perhaps God is a law of science that is the cause of the universe and can cause things to happen at any time without a need for an explanation?
This question makes me laugh as Theists are calling out "GOD!" while Atheists are calling it "SCIENCE!" and now I'm finding it hard to see the difference between the two.

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

You realize that such beliefs hindered science for thousands of years, right?

"There's no evidence the Earth is round, why would I take such a claim seriously?"

[Norstal]

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

You realize that such beliefs hindered science for thousands of years, right?

"There's no evidence the Earth is round, why would I take such a claim seriously?"

No, there is actually, even before telescopes. Math. That one Greek guy measured the circumference of the Earth by walking across Africa and measured how the shadow turns or something. You can't get a circumference if it was flat.

[New American Union]

the better question is "Do you believe there IS a god(s)?"

[Thisbia]

Science has a lot of phenomena that can't be explained. Look at the behavior of electrons. We just snootily call the parts we understand the most science and feel accomplished.

No, we call the manner in which we examine the behavior of electrons "science". The behavior of electrons is a phenomenon to be scientifically observed, it is not itself science. Also, we've got a pretty good understanding of the behavior of electrons.[/quote]


We certainly do not! And there are things we can never explain like adhesion. Scientists to this day cannot explain why things are adhesive. Contrary to popular belief science does not explain away everything. And again, (though it may have been on another thread) magic (this includes christian and hebrews - lets face it - lots of magic in old testament), which included coming up with beliefs of creation and gods, was primitive man trying to explain the world around him. Just how is that any different from science??

[Socialdemokraterne]

If there is no evidence, there's no reason to take the claim seriously. It's as simple as that.

You realize that such beliefs hindered science for thousands of years, right?

"There's no evidence the Earth is round, why would I take such a claim seriously?"

Evidence is required to substantiate a claim, that's rule number one in scientific inquiry. You can't just perform an ass-pull in spite of the data. If the data indicate that the Earth is flat, it is valid to take the Earth as such until data indicating otherwise comes along (as it did). See how this works, how only claims which are falsifiable in light of future observation may be considered "scientific", and how that data is required to validate a claim?

[Transhuman Proteus]

So, wow. We're back to the start. I question a theistic position held by some that doesn't make sense when looking at the universe as a whole.

You don't actually comment on the position itself, but say a God could still exist even though nothing in the universe suggests it does, or needs to our should, just because by being so smart and alien it could designed the universe in a way that doesn't look like it did, or needed to, or should have.

Yet...



Designed the universe in a way that doesn't show it was designed or needed a God, but then is interested in us and communicates with us (until technology advances to a point where we could record it as evidence, then it stops)...

So are you saying all modern religions are wrong?

Nope.

I'm saying trying to understand G-d is pointless.

Whether you want to believe in G-d or not is up to you. I really couldn't care.

Then we agree. I see little value in trying to comprehend something I am rather certain doesn't exist.

Until something indicates it does exist, or there is even a remote chance it might plausibly exist in some form that wont change. I will continue to question those individuals who claim something though that isn't especially supported by reality (such as a God that cares only about humans and their drop in the ocean period of existence when nothing about the universe suggests that, or God just really likes building stuff superfluous to us).

[Mavorpen]

It seems like there's a lot of criticisms with that model, in the Wikipedia page. I won't pretend to known quantum physics so I can't rebuke that, but with these kind of things, we can't really apply science to it. At least not what we currently have. If your explanation is correct though, I still don't see the need for a creator and I'm sure that you'll agree with me.

Which model? Inflationary or Eternal Inflation? Inflation is one of the big dogs of the world of physics, and to be honest I don't take those that criticize it to heart much. But, I digress. You're also right that Eternal Inflation isn't testable directly, but Inflation allows for it, and it would follow suit with what we know about Quantum Fluctuations.

I also would agree that there is no need for a creator. There are plenty of theories out there, from M-Theory, to whatever the hell Nikodem Poplawski calls his theory (I can never remember it...), and we will continue to make new theories that require less wishful thinking than a creator.

I'm just saying that in regards to the origin of Life and Everything (TM), I try not to use science to explain it. I use critical thinking instead.

Concerning the Origin of Life, I'm putting my money on hydrothermal vents.

But I suppose you're right, arguing from a scientific standpoint somewhat flies over their head.

[Mavorpen]

You realize that such beliefs hindered science for thousands of years, right?

"There's no evidence the Earth is round, why would I take such a claim seriously?"

And then we found evidence, and the claim became to be seriously considered. If this was a serious attempt at a refutation, you should try harder.