Does anyone actually still believe in God?

[Phil Ayesho]

Okay, I didnt have a chance to read the whole thing. But heres my two cents:

I believe in God. For those of you that don't believe in the Big Bang or God just always being there, here's a thought: We aren't supposed to understand. Trust me, I've thought long and hard about making sense of everything. It's not possible. Perhaps (just a thought) it's a 'test' as to our faith in him. If that makes any sense.

Who says we are supposed or can understand everything?

The fact that we shall never be able to fully understand reality is no justification for making shit up.


Delusional belief is not only a poor substitute for knowledge... it actually PREVENTS people from gaining knowledge and understanding that is well within our grasp...

Such as evolution...
Perhaps the single most successful scientific theory of our time... proven daily by dozens of different scientific disciplines...

And yet idiotic and delusional fait would have us turn our backs on something we CAN comprehend and which CAN cure disease, save species and enable us to live better lives....

Faith is foolishness,

 

[ZOS23xy]

still, My God is better than your God
My God's better than yours.
My God's Bigger because he eat....s..
Kennel Ration....??

Wait, that didn't come out right...

 

[mista geechee]

So the deity made us. But he gave us these urges that we are supposed to deny and he uses tragedies to test our faith in him? So he basically made us to see how much we will worship him? Doesn't that sound like an egotistical game?

 

[ZOS23xy]

The universe is constantly evolving, and all within the fold of it keeps changing and growing.

Everything is infinite; there is no difference.

 

[jack65]

Who says we are supposed or can understand everything?

The fact that we shall never be able to fully understand reality is no justification for making shit up.


Delusional belief is not only a poor substitute for knowledge... it actually PREVENTS people from gaining knowledge and understanding that is well within our grasp...

Such as evolution...
Perhaps the single most successful scientific theory of our time... proven daily by dozens of different scientific disciplines...

And yet idiotic and delusional fait would have us turn our backs on something we CAN comprehend and which CAN cure disease, save species and enable us to live better lives....

Faith is foolishness,

You don't have to give dozens of different scientific disciplines Phil, just one would do, you have ago at people because they don't think like you with your great thinking on such matters and that huge evolutionary brain of yours i would of thought that you could give your own opinions in a way as to not ridicule others.
hmm.. seems my faith in you was foolishness.

 

[uncut1234]

none of us know anything, you can argue all you want, but that doesnt change the fact none of us know anything about what is really goin on.

 

[nashboy]

I absolutely do. :biggrin1:

 

[Jovial]

He didn't - He just is. According to the argument He is the "Uncaused Cause".

It is generally taken, I believe, that before the Universe started expanding there was a 'singularity' and something caused a reaction ('Big Bang' perhaps) that kicked off the whole process, a causal chain. The Cosmological argument goes that this causal chain cannot be infinite and must have a beginning - therefore there must be a something that is itself not caused by anything else; religious philosophers have argued this is what God is. But of course it isn't a uniquely Christian philosophical argument. The wiki on it isn't too bad:

...that still leaves the question where did matter come from. How did it get here? Doesn't it require an explanation?

And here's the answer, MB:

The universe exists because it has to exist! Just like 2 + 2 = 4 is always true. Nothing causes it to be true. Well, actually it follows from some basic axioms. But even before anyone formally defined natural numbers, people still used them and understood the truths based on them (prime numbers, etc.). We don't say the axioms cause 2 + 2 to equal 4, but rather that it just follows from them as a truth. Timing is not involved in it at all. So maybe there are some axioms that the universe is based on, but I wouldn't say the axioms cause the universe. (I need to think about this a bit more.)

Then there's the argument that there could be infinitely many universes, each with their own set of laws, but our particular universe has the laws that led to intelligent beings asking these questions.

 

[deleted213967]

I seriously doubt that humanity will have the technology to phase out "God" and his mutliple avatars in our lifetime.

 

[JustAsking]

none of us know anything, you can argue all you want, but that doesnt change the fact none of us know anything about what is really goin on.

But how do you explain the 300+ transistors in your computer running logic at speeds up to 2Ghz? Your cpu could not have been designed if it wasn't for what we know about quantum physics and electromagnetic fields. The former was figured out about 100 years ago and the latter about 150 years ago.

In science and engineering, we can evaluate how much we know about something by how useful our theories are when we put them to work. For example, Maxwell's four equations for electromagnetism ultimately describe everything we know about the subject, and we couldnt make a computer or a radio without it.

Science is the one intellectual pursuit that comes with the ability to evaluate how good our ideas are, because Nature is the ultimate test of them.

 

[JustAsking]

The Cosmological argument also states that everything has a cause - randomness doesn't enter into it. One can believe in an intentioned deity that steers the universe or one can believe in random cause and effect - neither are outside the remit of the theory. The theory merely states that a causal chain cannot be without a beginning. That's the bit you seem to be disagreeing with. So, if the universe is infinite and "our universe was formed with matter from a previous universe and so on" where do you think it all came from? If matter can be neither created not destroyed how did it all get here?

I'm not asking from the point of view of having a smart answer or of trying to convince you of anything. I'm just curious to know if you have a theory, or if there is a theory out there you subscribe to.

But the Cosmological Argument was not supported by evidence. It as just Aristotle's chain of logic that led to the proof of God. That everything has a cause was a good starting point for anything in the classical physics world, until we discovered Quantum Mechanics. According to QM, many sub-atomic events are non-causal. Radioactive decay, for example, happens to an individual atom spontaneously.

Given that, is it so outlandish that the Big Bang came from nothing and had no cause?

The scientist in me says we should just keep on working backwards towards T = 0 to discover all the natural processes. The "believer" in me says that it was caused by God. Fortunately we won't make enough progress in the science in my lifetime for that to be challenged.

 

[jason_els]

But the Cosmological Argument was not supported by evidence. It as just Aristotle's chain of logic that led to the proof of God. That everything has a cause was a good starting point for anything in the classical physics world, until we discovered Quantum Mechanics. According to QM, many sub-atomic events are non-causal. Radioactive decay, for example, happens to an individual atom spontaneously.

Given that, is it so outlandish that the Big Bang came from nothing and had no cause?

The scientist in me says we should just keep on working backwards towards T = 0 to discover all the natural processes. The "believer" in me says that it was caused by God. Fortunately we won't make enough progress in the science in my lifetime for that to be challenged.

This just explained why you have Al Swerengen as an avatar.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

And here's the answer, MB:

The universe exists because it has to exist! Just like 2 + 2 = 4 is always true. Nothing causes it to be true. Well, actually it follows from some basic axioms. But even before anyone formally defined natural numbers, people still used them and understood the truths based on them (prime numbers, etc.). We don't say the axioms cause 2 + 2 to equal 4, but rather that it just follows from them as a truth. Timing is not involved in it at all. So maybe there are some axioms that the universe is based on, but I wouldn't say the axioms cause the universe. (I need to think about this a bit more.)

Then there's the argument that there could be infinitely many universes, each with their own set of laws, but our particular universe has the laws that led to intelligent beings asking these questions.

Interesting, and I tend to think along the lines of your 1st paragraph myself, but it isn't the answer, it is an answer. :smile:

But the Cosmological Argument was not supported by evidence. It as just Aristotle's chain of logic that led to the proof of God. That everything has a cause was a good starting point for anything in the classical physics world, until we discovered Quantum Mechanics. According to QM, many sub-atomic events are non-causal. Radioactive decay, for example, happens to an individual atom spontaneously.

Given that, is it so outlandish that the Big Bang came from nothing and had no cause?

The scientist in me says we should just keep on working backwards towards T = 0 to discover all the natural processes. The "believer" in me says that it was caused by God. Fortunately we won't make enough progress in the science in my lifetime for that to be challenged.

I failed to point out that I wasn't arguing the Cosmological argument from a personal belief perspective, I was merely presenting it as a possible answer to a question that was posed. The argument relies on the 'fact' that a causal chain must have a start point. And therein, as you point out (though with better scientific understanding than I could), lies the problem.

I believe this came up in the evolution thread a while back, but what I find most supportive of the idea of a conscious guiding (but not pre-determining) deity is the improbability of it all. The odds against us existing as as we do are mind bogglingly huge. Now, this does not count as proof - I know that. But looking at all the things we can see and understand and seeing how far from ourselves our understanding can reach is awesome (in both the traditional and modern senses of the word).

Going back to Jovial's point about multiple universes with their own laws - there is currently no way of ruling that out and I don't see a need to (from a perspective of believing in a deity). Also going back to what Drifter said a few pages back about using 'God' as an explanation of the inexplicable - well that is certainly true. It doesn't mean* that there is no 'higher power' though, any more than it means there is one.
* and I know Drifter didn't impose any meaning on it.

I think the aggressive arguing against religion has a lot to do with the problems religion and religious dogma have caused. There is no need to say that anyone of faith is stupid, ignorant, blind to the facts. There are people like that - but that is not necessary to faith. The organisation of religion has always been problematic because, I believe, all human institutions are prone to corruption. This is a problem all religions face but I don't see it as a de facto argument against any one religious philosophy. For me the arrogant atheist who 'knows the truth' and assumes his viewpoint makes him more intelligent is just as ignorant as the Bible thumping zealot who 'knows the truth' and assumes his viewpoint makes him a better person.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Yes by me even being able to post this is proof in my eyes. Yes i believe in God. Church every Sunday.

 

[JustAsking]

....I believe this came up in the evolution thread a while back, but what I find most supportive of the idea of a conscious guiding (but not pre-determining) deity is the improbability of it all. The odds against us existing as as we do are mind bogglingly huge.
....

MB,
There is always an hours worth of response in one of these idea packed postings of yours. I will try to keep it below a half hour, though.

There is a good phrase for this called "argument from incredulity". The problem with it is that most of what modern science has discovered in the last 100 years is both incredible and unlikely. So our sense of incredulity is usually misleading when it comes to science.

But there is a better response to your feeling of improbability. The analogy goes like this:

The chances that I might win the Ohio Megabucks lottery is about 1 in 175,711,536. So it seems unlikely that I will win tonite, and if I do, it will be so incredible that I will think I was special in some way. As I am interviewed on the 6:00 news, I am likely to be staring dumbstruck into the camera and marveling at how amazing it is that I am the one standing there.

On the other hand, the odds that any of the lottery players in Ohio will win the Megabucks lottery tonight is probably about 1 in 4. When that person wins, he is likely to be on the 6:00 news staring dumbstruck into the camera and feeling somehow special.

How does this apply to the cosmology question? Well, without sufficient evidence either way, as Jovial said, it is no more outrageous to think that there might be billions of universes as it is that this is the only one. And it appears that what we know about the big bang, the physical constants of this universe (which determine whether matter can form, etc) were formed by the initial conditions during the big bang, and the ensuing few milliseconds.

That means that if there are billions of universes, all with different properties, it is not so incredible that at least one of them has the properties of our universe. And so, when it happens, eventually there sentient life there who has evolved to the point where they are wondering how unlikely it is that their universe has the properties necessary to support life. We are like that 1 in 5 lottery winner who suddenly finds themselves lucky.

 

[Jovial]

This is the idea of the fine tuned universe:
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You don't have to give dozens of different scientific disciplines Phil, just one would do, you have ago at people because they don't think like you with your great thinking on such matters and that huge evolutionary brain of yours i would of thought that you could give your own opinions in a way as to not ridicule others.
hmm.. seems my faith in you was foolishness.

Faith in me would be foolishness.

If only just one WOULD do... but the faithful, like the 9/11 conspiracy dolts, simply discount real evidence in favor of innuendo, and specious narrative with no evidence at all.

Sorry... idiocy is ridiculous.
People who claim certainty as to the truth of their religious convictions are worthy of ridicule.

When folks seriously speak of God... it is identical to someone seriously speaking of the easter bunny.

You wouldn't laugh?


Imagination is not evidence... wishful thinking is not proof....

You want proof of evolution? Just one? MRSAs.

They evolved. While we were watching.

 

[dufus]

Atheism is not a religion. It puzzles me how one can get bent out of shape when an atheist expresses his or her opinion.

 

[JustAsking]

...I think the aggressive arguing against religion has a lot to do with the problems religion and religious dogma have caused. There is no need to say that anyone of faith is stupid, ignorant, blind to the facts. There are people like that - but that is not necessary to faith. The organisation of religion has always been problematic because, I believe, all human institutions are prone to corruption. This is a problem all religions face but I don't see it as a de facto argument against any one religious philosophy. For me the arrogant atheist who 'knows the truth' and assumes his viewpoint makes him more intelligent is just as ignorant as the Bible thumping zealot who 'knows the truth' and assumes his viewpoint makes him a better person.

MB,
Once again you have put your finger on something profound. I have come to believe the same thing. If you spend time in the science blogs comment sections, you find many conversations like this one. And it became clear to me that in fighting against religious fundamentalism, many people move to the opposite end of the spectrum and exhibit a kind of fundamentalism of their own, be it atheist fundamentalism or a kind of logical positivist fundamentalism.

The fatal flaw in each extreme is the same flaw that has caused so much misery and suffering in the world throughout history. The flaw is based in what you might call "certainty". In other words, the undying certainty that one's point of view is right, is the truth, and is so valuable that it is worth forcing its implications on everyone around.

The most dangerous corrolary of this fundamentalist certainty is the misconception that man is ultimately perfectable. It leads individuals or groups to feel that the truth they feel they are holding on to holds the secret to the next utopia.

Religions fall into this trap all the time. Some of the worst atrocities mankind has ever committed have been done in the name of God because of excessive certainty that the truth they feel they have makes them exceptional and that truth must be imposed on the rest of the world in order to bring about the utopia (either in this life or the next). The problem with fundamentalists is not that they believe in God. It's that they don't believe in the inevitability of sin.

On the secular side, you find a kind of Enlightenment fundamentalism, where there is the certainty that if you only relieved the world of superstition and other irrational behavior and thought you could bring about a new world order. The certainty is that once logic, reason, and empiricism is imposed on everyone's way of life, a new kind of utopia will come about. Once again, is the notion that one holds onto a formula that makes man perfectable.

Both extremes ignore the fact that man is somewhat irrational, has limitations, and often works out of self-interest. Both extremes don't realize that they could not possibly be holding onto the ultimate truth, so they are blind to their own arrogance. Both extremes ultimately commit atrocities from their "ends justifies the means", hubris. You either get holy wars or Hiroshima.

 

[naughty]

Yes, I do.