Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[*TRUE*]

I think a good justification for religion is that it gives you a sense of hope, especially in the world of uncertainty we live in, I suppose it would give a lot of reassurance that there's some kind of higher power watching over you, and that it will give you life after death/salvation and whatever else.

It works for some, but unfortunately, not for me. If I'm constantly looking to a higher power for reassurance, I would feel like my independence is being restricted.

Whether we like it or not, people are always going to be judged. It's something that we just have to learn to live with (now, usually this would be my cue to start singing "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist", but that doesn't really fit here...)

Religion has its basis in more than hope. One could say it has been humanities' way of explaining who we are and why we are here.
People will always judge others in some way. I have a very unfortunate habit of judging those from low socio-economic backgrounds.
You know what though? We have a choice. We can do better - I know I can.

 

[Enteebee]

Snap.

fuck, b10. Our responses are so similar, further proof of the dogmatic atheist brainwashing of our secular education system.

 

[squeenie]

I saw Avenue Q on Broadway. It rocked my socks.

I want to go see it sometime... I have the soundtrack though.

I once started singing Everyone's A Little Bit Racist in Studies of Religion... Oh the fun I had.

 

[squeenie]

Religion has its basis in more than hope. One could say it has been humanities' way of explaining who we are and why we are here.
People will always judge others in some way. I have a very unfortunate habit of judging those from low socio-economic backgrounds.
You know what though? We have a choice. We can do better - I know I can.

Yeah, I guess everyone could do with a bit of self improvement. I for one, am apparently "too nice". I say yes to people too easily.

And then I told someone the other day that nice guys finish last. I really should take my own advice...

 

[Enteebee]

Religion has its basis in more than hope. One could say it has been humanities' way of explaining who we are and why we are here.

For educated, intelligent people I honestly don't think there's much more to it than hope... You are right that it has always been our way of explaining our universe but I just don't think that cuts it anymore and I'd be interested to know if it even was that great in the past, tbh I find myself compelled to go along with some myths sometimes just because it makes me feel better. If my mum begins to talk frankly about her death, I cannot tell her that I don't believe she will go to heaven, I don't want her having that sadness, I want her to continue to just be happy and in a way it might be wrong of me but I wish she'd be peacefully ignorant when the issue comes to the fore (like I feel people usually are).

 

[Garygaz]

1+2+3: I would posit that our universe as we know it has always existed in some form and began taking shape about 13 billion years ago when the big bang occured, to ask what happened 'before' time=0 is to ask 'what is north of the north pole?' or 'what comes before a in the alphabet?' it is an illogical question... All these problems seem to only exist within a universe which has time as we know it.

4: I'd posit that goodness is a human construct... to one person there might be a lot of goodness in blowing up a building, to another there would be negative goodness.

5: Entirely flawed, we have evolution which shows that increasingly complex things can be formed from simpler things without a designer.

1+2+3: I would posit that our universe as we know it has always existed in some form and began taking shape about 13 billion years ago when the big bang occured, to ask what happened 'before' time=0

Argh, stop looking at time in such a relative way, think of time as an endless measurement of everything, i.e, there would of been infinite amounts of time before the big bang, only not measured in our conventional scientific way. Can't you grasp the concept that there was existence before the big bang? (not existence in the form life, but matter, of some construct) Time doesn't begin, time is perpetual, it has never stopped and never begun. If you went to another universe with an infinitely powerful telescope, and looked to where our universe is, assuming it is over 13 billion light years away, you would still be able to see the physical (or lack of physical) area in which our not yet created universe would eventually inhabit. In saying that it 'always' existed, in some form, are you suggesting that matter has always existed? That it wasn't created, it just was?

 

[Enteebee]

Argh, stop looking at time in such a relative way, think of time as an endless measurement of everything, i.e, there would of been infinite amounts of time before the big bang, only not measured in our conventional scientific way.

There is indeed evidence that there may have been time before our time (this is time measured in perhaps not a conventional way, but time as we understand it), but even if this were true I still find it quite logically permissible to say that at the very beginning of all philosophical time it is illogical to ask what came before. My understanding of time before the big bang are usually ideas that center around a sort of reincarnating universe or a multiverse etc.

TBH I'm not even sure if this is relative to your questioning and worry it might just muddy the waters of my point...

Can't you grasp the concept that there was existence before the big bang? (not existence in the form life, but matter, of some construct) Time doesn't begin, time is perpetual, it has never stopped and never begun.

There was existence and it existed at time=0, this is a snapshot of time which can have nothing before it by definition. Time has 'always' existed in the sense that 'always' is a time-centered statement.

If you went to another universe with an infinitely powerful telescope, and looked to where our universe is, assuming it is over 13 billion light years away, you would still be able to see the physical (or lack of physical) area in which our not yet created universe would eventually inhabit. In saying that it 'always' existed, in some form, are you suggesting that matter has always existed?

erm what? No you would not, this is pure pseudoscience as far as I know... can you find me some sort of a scientific paper which claims we could see other universes with powerful enough telescopes?

In saying that it 'always' existed, in some form, are you suggesting that matter has always existed? That it wasn't created, it just was?

Not matter it would be a form of energy (though energy/matter are interchangeable) and yes it has 'always' existed, 'always' meaning throughout all time.

 

[squeenie]

For educated, intelligent people I honestly don't think there's much more to it than hope... You are right that it has always been our way of explaining our universe but I just don't think that cuts it anymore and I'd be interested to know if it even was that great in the past, tbh I find myself compelled to go along with some myths sometimes just because it makes me feel better. If my mum begins to talk frankly about her death, I cannot tell her that I don't believe she will go to heaven, I don't want her having that sadness, I want her to continue to just be happy and in a way it might be wrong of me but I wish she'd be peacefully ignorant when the issue comes to the fore (like I feel people usually are).

You know, whenever a fundie starts talking to me, I think to myself "Should I tell them to snap out of it, or should I just let them be?" Usually, I'd just let them live in their little happy world.

In year 10, I did IT, and half the time, my teacher probably had no idea what he was talking about. One time, he mentioned something that I knew was wrong. I was going to put my hand up and correct him, but my friend stopped me and said "No, let him feel smart"

Now when I think about it, that's one of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard. After all, who am I to be questioning someone, when I know I have my own faults too? "Let the one without sin cast the first stone" is what the good book says about it, I think.

 

[katie tully]

Insightful as always, thank you squeenie

 

[squeenie]

Insightful as always, thank you squeenie

And I always thought my posts were just the ramblings of a high school kid still looking for her place in the world... Thanks a lot!

 

[Enteebee]

You know, whenever a fundie starts talking to me, I think to myself "Should I tell them to snap out of it, or should I just let them be?" Usually, I'd just let them live in their little happy world.

In year 10, I did IT, and half the time, my teacher probably had no idea what he was talking about. One time, he mentioned something that I knew was wrong. I was going to put my hand up and correct him, but my friend stopped me and said "No, let him feel smart"

Now when I think about it, that's one of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard. After all, who am I to be questioning someone, when I know I have my own faults too? "Let the one without sin cast the first stone" is what the good book says about it, I think.

It's a bit of a problem for me.. to be honest I usually fall down on the side of letting people know what I truly think is the truth as I feel it isn't my job to protect anyone, if someone has cancer I think it's up to them to decide how to deal with it etc... It's not so much a moral dilemma for me as my selfish desire for everyone to just be happy around me.

 

[hj47]

Ok scientists, help me out a bit.

Back before time=0 (don't call me irrational, please), before our brand of time existed, how did the very first atom, in the infiniteness of space, come to exist. Is it assumed that it was just there? Also, I've read the theory of the Big Bang, I can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race. Don't any of you guys ever delve from the accepted truths of science and ask, isn't it a bit weird that a super-heated explosion of lifeless matter has created everything in humanity?

Omg, excuse me WTF but I DO have to call you irrational.

To claim that god created the big bang just opens up a fuckfull of other questions, like:

If Big bang ==caused by==> god, then,

god===caused by===>???

???=======>???????? etc etc, you get the point.

To claim that you "can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race." means that you have not read substantially into any basic biologic concepts ie evolution.

 

[squeenie]

It's a bit of a problem for me.. to be honest I usually fall down on the side of letting people know what I truly think is the truth as I feel it isn't my job to protect anyone, if someone has cancer I think it's up to them to decide how to deal with it etc... It's not so much a moral dilemma for me as my selfish desire for everyone to just be happy around me.

Sometimes I think "Am I really doing them a favour by ignoring their seemingly insane beliefs?" If I told a fundie to snap out of it, I might justify it by saying that I'm just trying to help them, but at the same time, I don't want to appear patronizing to them. I really value my indpendence, and so I try not to do anything to intefere with everyone else's.

For me, it's a moral dilemma. I always feel like I'm not in the position to be questioning someone's beliefs, because I know that I wouldn't want to be asked the same things. But at the same time, I feel like I have an obligation to at least give them some advice...

 

[Enteebee]

Sometimes I think "Am I really doing them a favour by ignoring their seemingly insane beliefs?" If I told a fundie to snap out of it, I might justify it by saying that I'm just trying to help them, but at the same time, I don't want to appear patronizing to them. I really value my indpendence, and so I try not to do anything to intefere with everyone else's.

For me, it's a moral dilemma. I always feel like I'm not in the position to be questioning someone's beliefs, because I know that I wouldn't want to be asked the same things. But at the same time, I feel like I have an obligation to at least give them some advice...

haha I see it the complete opposite... I think it's patronising not to tell someone what you believe is the truth (if they are reasonably interested in what you have to say), i.e. because you're afraid they might get upset or might get irrationally angry.

 

[Garygaz]

There is indeed evidence that there may have been time before our time (this is time measured in perhaps not a conventional way, but time as we understand it), but even if this were true I still find it quite logically permissible to say that at the very beginning of all philosophical time it is illogical to ask what came before. My understanding of time before the big bang are usually ideas that center around a sort of reincarnating universe or a multiverse etc.

TBH I'm not even sure if this is relative to your questioning and worry it might just muddy the waters of my point...


There was existence and it existed at time=0, this is a snapshot of time which can have nothing before it by definition. Time has 'always' existed in the sense that 'always' is a time-centered statement.



erm what? No you would not, this is pure pseudoscience as far as I know... can you find me some sort of a scientific paper which claims we could see other universes with powerful enough telescopes?



Not matter it would be a form of energy (though energy/matter are interchangeable) and yes it has 'always' existed, 'always' meaning throughout all time.

hmm, well I guess we are just looking at the issue from two completely different stand points. The inherent point in my arguement that before the beginning of scientific time, be it philosophical time, or whatever you call it, there was something that caused everything, and something triggered it/created it.

Let me produce a simple and crappy diagram.


Present.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 BC
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
Earth is created
.
.
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Big Bang
?

So nothing before? Not even wide open nothingness existed? How can for one miniscule amount of time there be 'nothing' which then- in no amount of time - explodes to create everything. Maybe my simple mind will never be able to understand the depths of knowledge to accept this. BUT FUCK WHAT THE HELL?!?! There was no time, no matter, no nothing, then there was matter, time and life?! D: Kill me, I'll never understand.

 

[Enteebee]

hmm, well I guess we are just looking at the issue from two completely different stand points. The inherent point in my arguement that before the beginning of scientific time, be it philosophical time, or whatever you call it, there was something that caused everything, and something triggered it/created it.

Let me produce a simple and crappy diagram.


Present.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 BC
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
Earth is created
.
.
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Big Bang
?

So nothing before? Not even wide open nothingness existed? How can for one miniscule amount of time there be 'nothing' which then- in no amount of time - explodes to create everything. Maybe my simple mind will never be able to understand the depths of knowledge to accept this. BUT FUCK WHAT THE HELL?!?! There was no time, no matter, no nothing, then there was matter, time and life?! D: Kill me, I'll never understand.

You can't have cause without time.... All you can possibly say is that there was this entity (let's call it god for your sake) which exists outside of time, but all this thing can do now is one thing (if it could do more then it would exist within some sort of time) and that is create universes. It cannot have a choice about creating a universe, it cannot have a conscience or any of that... all it can do is be some magical universe creating thing.

It's not that there was 'no blah blah then there was time' to say there was X then Y you have to have time, if there is no time then you just "have X"... so in the case of our universe there is a form of energy which existed (let's call it E) and it just existed. E exists... Then once time began e could change form etc and causation began.

 

[Garygaz]

Omg, excuse me WTF but I DO have to call you irrational.

To claim that god created the big bang just opens up a fuckfull of other questions, like:

If Big bang ==caused by==> god, then,

god===caused by===>???

???=======>???????? etc etc, you get the point.

To claim that you "can't grasp the concept of non-living matter turning into living objects, that infinitely small particles have turned into a breeding, thinking, powerful living race." means that you have not read substantially into any basic biologic concepts ie evolution.

Oh god, this will go in circles and circles. I'm not claiming there is a god, fuucckkk, I was rather posing the question of what caused the big bang. Learn to read.

Also the whole God ========>??????

I'm agnostic, but to those who do believe in god, it is kind of accepted that he doesn't follow any laws of physics, creation, time so it is pointless to try and describe it in a methodical scientific manner

 

[squeenie]

haha I see it the complete opposite... I think it's patronising not to tell someone what you believe is the truth (if they are reasonably interested in what you have to say), i.e. because you're afraid they might get upset or might get irrationally angry.

And not only that, I'd feel bad about it, too. Ah well, questions like these never have straight answers to them.

 

[morning storm]

I'm agnostic, but to those who do believe in god, it is kind of accepted that he doesn't follow any laws of physics, creation, time so it is pointless to try and describe it in a methodical scientific manner

this is a cop out. to say their arguments dont need to adhere to logic and reason can allow them to therefore argue anything. if we accept this, there exists zero grounds for debate. we can all go home.

how convenient it is that the science that disproves it is the thing that doesnt matter at all.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm agnostic, but to those who do believe in god, it is kind of accepted that he doesn't follow any laws of physics, creation, time so it is pointless to try and describe it in a methodical scientific manner

Yes that does seem to be the general gist of things... Though don't you see there's something wrong there? In order to come to a belief in God all they have is some form of logic etc all they have is the sort of reasoning that is endowed to humans, if they want to say God is outside of logic then what are their reasons for belief? They just do because they feel it's right? If you were to debate someone and they said "Well I feel X is true - I rest my case" would you think they've made any meaningful contribution at all?