Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Slidey]

I almost wish God did exist so I could have a definitive answer to this question once and for all when I die. And then, as a joke, I'd bet God couldn't create a universe that created itself. The sheer power of the paradox would result in a big bang.

 

[sam04u]

Sure buddy lets debate.

There is no empirical evidence to give us a reason to believe in such a god. Your move.

Ha ha ha. It's funny because empirical evidence, or the absense of empirical evidence is not reason in itself to not believe in something. But if we look at the universe around us there are experiments you can do if you like to confirm that the universe was created by such a god.

The first requires something like a coin. A good coin, perhaps a 50c coin if you have access to one. Now using any method known to man or science, attempt to make that 50c coin dissapear. I don't mean moving it, hiding it, melting it or cutting it into two pieces. I mean make the matter, and thus energy which it contains dissapear. I'm sure you'll fast see there is no way to completely destroy the coin.

The same goes with creating energy. Using no material or energy, attempt to create a 50c coin. You'll also sooner see that creating energy just like destroying energy is out of the realm of possibility for humankind. We can not create or destroy energy. We can do pretty much everything else though.

A third experiment is to observe energy spontaneously being created for no apparent reason. Otherwise observe a result which comes from no cause, ofcouse soonest of all you'll see that too is impossible.

So we conclude that energy exists in our universe, and it pretty much has always existed in our universe for as long as our universe has existed. That is to say that before energy there was no universe. This is especially true as far as observable pheonomena goes, we can not observe anything which has no energy, so as far as humankind is concerned, before energy there was nothing.

That included god infact. If we are to believe god created the universe (energy) then we are also to assume he can not be created of energy. But again this opens up another commonly asked question. "How about if energy always existed? Why does something need to create energy?" the answer to that is as simple as it is complex.

Energy is very complex. It's complex in a way that as humankind can not easily comprehend, since everything in our observable universe is based on this system. Energy has a value. Energy can not exist in a neutral form, otherwise it simply does not exist. Energy can be negative in a sense that we can categorise it, and it can be positive, but overall the point is energy has a value.

Without a value, energy with a 0 value (I don't mean 0 net value, but 0 value) is not energy. Energy like all values are defined. Hence the need for a definer or creator of Energy. Particularly a creator not made of energy, without a value.

 

[sam04u]

I almost wish God did exist so I could have a definitive answer to this question once and for all when I die. And then, as a joke, I'd bet God couldn't create a universe that created itself. The sheer power of the paradox would result in a big bang.

I almost wish you didn't exist so I wouldn't have to read your shit posts while I'm on BOS and alive. And then, as a poster, I'd feel comfortable knowing there were less shit posts. The sheer shift in thread quality of that would result in good quality posts.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I almost wish God did exist so I could have a definitive answer to this question once and for all when I die. And then, as a joke, I'd bet God couldn't create a universe that created itself. The sheer power of the paradox would result in a big bang.

maybe this has already happened and we live in the universe that resulted

 

[want2bdifferent]

Do you guys think that athiesm is actually a religion, I know people say it is the lack of religion but when you think about it your athiest religion is that you believe in no God.

what do you guys think?

 

[Enteebee]

The quality of posts in this thread is terrible. I'll try to change that with my post (even though introducing rational debate is not exactly my forte)

Because you're a pseudo-intellectual moron, perhaps the greatest I've met on this forum (having forwarded me a pm with your own version of physics, it was quite amazing).

Ha ha ha. It's funny because empirical evidence, or the absense of empirical evidence is not reason in itself to not believe in something.

Yes it is. If you wanted to prove that a drug will not cause cancer you will run test after test using the strongest of empirical devices you have available looking for cancer-causing agents... If you do not manage to find them, you will declare that the drug is free of cancer causing agents. Obviously it is possible that there are cancer causing agents somewhere in the drug which are undetectable by our empirical observations, but in our reality we rely on the best knowledge we have at hand.

But if we look at the universe around us there are experiments you can do if you like to confirm that the universe was created by such a god....
The first requires something like a coin. A good coin, perhaps a 50c coin if you have access to one. Now using any method known to man or science, attempt to make that 50c coin dissapear. I don't mean moving it, hiding it, melting it or cutting it into two pieces. I mean make the matter, and thus energy which it contains dissapear. I'm sure you'll fast see there is no way to completely destroy the coin.

The same goes with creating energy. Using no material or energy, attempt to create a 50c coin. You'll also sooner see that creating energy just like destroying energy is out of the realm of possibility for humankind. We can not create or destroy energy. We can do pretty much everything else though.

That's a lot of fumbling around words to say 'we have the law of conservation of energy'.

So we conclude that energy exists in our universe, and it pretty much has always existed in our universe for as long as our universe has existed. That is to say that before energy there was no universe. This is especially true as far as observable pheonomena goes, we can not observe anything which has no energy, so as far as humankind is concerned, before energy there was nothing.

What do you mean "before" energy etc? The whole point is that there is no before, since time existed there has been energy (in some basic form) to ask what there was before time is to ask "What's north of the north pole?"

But again this opens up another commonly asked question. "How about if energy always existed? Why does something need to create energy?" the answer to that is as simple as it is complex.

It isn't a question of need, it's a question of possibility. You can not do something before time exists.

Energy is very complex. It's complex in a way that as humankind can not easily comprehend, since everything in our observable universe is based on this system. Energy has a value. Energy can not exist in a neutral form, otherwise it simply does not exist. Energy can be negative in a sense that we can categorise it, and it can be positive, but overall the point is energy has a value.

Without a value, energy with a 0 value (I don't mean 0 net value, but 0 value) is not energy. Energy like all values are defined. Hence the need for a definer or creator of Energy. Particularly a creator not made of energy, without a value.

Tbqh I have no idea what you're going on about with 'values' etc but my guess is you're just talking out your arse like usual (prove me wrong). The part about if energy has 'values' they need to be defined however I think I can answer, the answer would be that the 'values' are inate in the energy and thus don't need to be 'defined'.

 

[*TRUE*]

Do you guys think that athiesm is actually a religion, I know people say it is the lack of religion but when you think about it your athiest religion is that you believe in no God.

what do you guys think?

Most people on here are what i would call agnostics.
No proof there is a God , substantial reason to doubt existance of God , ergo live like there isnt one.
EDIT: i do know what you mean though.

 

[Enteebee]

Do you guys think that athiesm is actually a religion, I know people say it is the lack of religion but when you think about it your athiest religion is that you believe in no God.

what do you guys think?

If you define religion as "a belief about the existence of god" then having an atheistic belief is a religion, but that isn't how I'd define religion. I'd say a religion needs to:

- belief in some sort of supernatural force
- have sacred texts/traditions etc

The are also many things which seem to be common amongst most religions:

- sacred sites/buildings
- hierarchical organisation structure.
- miracle stories
- an afterlife/some sort of reincarnation
- moral codes

 

[Enteebee]

Most people on here are what i would call agnostics.
No proof there is a God , substantial reason to doubt existance of God , ergo live like there isnt one.

I get the feeling you don't want to accept that we might be atheists because you've been accustomed to 'hating' atheists so much, you don't like that we might be atheists while still being intelligent, kind, well-mannered and decent people. I am definitely an atheist, I do not believe in god like I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I would not like someone calling me a tooth fairy agnostic because that would be an insult to my intelligence, there is no tooth fairy - There is no god.

 

[*TRUE*]

I get the feeling you don't want to accept that we might be atheists because 'atheist' is such a mean word. I am definitely an atheist, I do not believe in god like I don't believe in the tooth fairy. I would not call me a tooth fairy agnostic because that would be an insult to my intelligence, there is no tooth fairy - There is no god.

No, i dont think so , possibly , but i dont think so.
It has to do with my understanding of the word atheist.
In my mind , an atheist either has proof God doesnt exist or has faith that he doesnt (belief despite absence of evidence - tho i understand that lack of evidence for God in the first place could be seen as a kind of evidence)
If a person has faith that God doesnt exist , i place them in the same basket as me.

 

[Enteebee]

No, i dont think so , possibly , but i dont think so.
It has to do with my understanding of the word atheist.
In my mind , an atheist either has proof God doesnt exist or has faith that he doesnt (belief despite absence of evidence - tho i understand that lack of evidence for God in the first place could be seen as a kind of evidence)
If a person has faith that God doesnt exist , i place them in the same basket as me.

What would you say DOESN'T exist *TRUE*? Do leprechauns NOT exist? Does the tooth fairy NOT exist? Do little fairies that fire arrows into people's bums to make them fall in love NOT exist?

 

[*TRUE*]

What would you say DOESN'T exist *TRUE*? Do leprechauns NOT exist? Does the tooth fairy NOT exist? Do little fairies that fire arrows into people's bums to make them fall in love NOT exist?

I see no evidence of them. But i also have no faith in them, i dont want to have faith in them either
I want to have faith in my God. I love him.
I dont expect you to understand...maybe you can , i dont know.

 

[Enteebee]

I see no evidence of them. But i also have no faith in them, i dont want to have faith in them either
I want to have faith in my God. I love him.
I dont expect you to understand...maybe you can , i dont know.

And because you see no evidence of them you say they do not exist. I say the exact same thing about god. So if you consider yourself a non-believer in the tooth fairy, you should equally consider me a non-believer in God - An atheist.

 

[*TRUE*]

And because you see no evidence of them you say they do not exist. I say the exact same thing about god. So if you consider yourself a non-believer in the tooth fairy, you should equally consider me a non-believer in God - An atheist.

Okay i will call you an atheist.
If someone had faith in something id investigate.

 

[Enteebee]

*TRUE* if I work for a drug company and I've got to make sure there's no cancer-causing agents in this new drug we're releasing, I do thousands upon thousands of empirical tests on my small sample, have this independently checked etc and there appears to be absolutely no trace of cancer-causing agents in my sample, can I declare that there is NO cancer-causing agent in the drug, or do I have to say "I have faith there is no cancer-causing agent in the drug"? I think we can say at least "to the best of our knowledge, after vigorous attempts to find otherwise, there appear to be no traces of cancer-causing agents in the sample".

 

[*TRUE*]

*TRUE* if I work for a drug company and I've got to make sure there's no cancer-causing agents in this new drug we're releasing, I do thousands upon thousands of empirical tests on my small sample, have this independently checked etc and there appears to be absolutely no trace of cancer-causing agents in my sample, can I declare that there is NO cancer-causing agent in the drug, or do I have to say "I have faith there is no cancer-causing agent in the drug"? I think we can say "to the best of our knowledge, after vigorous attempts to find otherwise, there appear to be no traces of cancer-causing agents in the sample".

I agree. But not when it comes to God - he asks me to have faith in him without this empirical evidence.

 

[Enteebee]

I agree. But not when it comes to God - he asks me to have faith in him without this empirical evidence.

But then what are you basing your faith on? It's always a bad idea to just trust your intuitions. Humans can make up fantasies, humans get their 'hunches' etc wrong, that's why in science it has self-correcting mechanisms.

 

[*TRUE*]

But then what are you basing your faith on? It's always a bad idea to just trust your intuitions. Humans can make up fantasies, humans get their 'hunches' etc wrong, that's why in science it has self-correcting mechanisms.

I base my faith on Him (who He is) and what he has done in my life.

 

[Enteebee]

I base my faith on Him (who He is) and what he has done in my life.

The first part of that sentence appears to be meaningless rhetoric, the second half I'm guessing is about things in your life that your attribute to god... The question would be why do you attribute them to god?

 

[sam04u]

Because you're a pseudo-intellectual moron, perhaps the greatest I've met on this forum (having forwarded me a pm with your own version of physics, it was quite amazing).

What's with the personal attacks? There's no wonder the quality of the posts in this topic have been degraded. Rather than deal with the other peoples arguments you resort to personal attacks. Pathetic.

*snip* lolcancer?

I don't think you quite understood what I said. I'll repeat it for you.
"the absense of empirical evidence is not reason in itself to not believe in something."

That's a lot of fumbling around words to say 'we have the law of conservation of energy'.

You miss the point I was trying to make. I was trying to show the nature of energy in our universe. And thus with an understanding of that nature, we can make inferences about it's origin.

I think I can answer, the answer would be that the 'values' are inate in the energy and thus don't need to be 'defined'.

Well, you thought wrong. You see the reason you and I exist, the reason we can beat away at hard, solid matter, made of energy is because of the value energy has. It's a physical entity. The point being, energy is of something. And because it's of something, energy which has no value (or a value of 0) can not exist. Unlike other entities or bodies which do not have values (that is to say what we can expect to be created spontaneously) energy has a value.

Does that make sense?