Is there a GOD?

[2020hindsight]

Observe, touch or measure an idea.

As for the rest, there doesn't seem to be a point, so I'm not sure.

well if you're saying "God" is an "idea" that cannot be proven , touched, observed, or measured , i'd agree with you .

As to whether there's a point (there), I think that's what the thread is about, and I think the jury is still out. (but hey - they'd quickly rally if you produced any of that evidence you talk about).

 

[Wysiwyg]

Humans have turned one thing into another.Bauxite to aluminium and hydrocarbons into plastics for example.These things don`t grow on trees but with certain combinations of what is found in nature, then a new thing is created.Is the knowledge of mind a hint at what is possible creation ways.

Two separate teams of researchers from the United States and Japan have announced they have re-programmed skin cells into cells that mimic embryonic stem cells.

p.s. good post that earlier mstradesim.Highly unlikely someone though.

People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
1) The universe created itself
2) The universe is uncreated
3) Something/someone created the universe

1) is impossible. It would need to exist prior to itself in order to create itself.
2) has been shown wrong. The universe had a beginning.
3) hence, something/someone created the universe

 

[MS+Tradesim]

well if you're saying "God" is an "idea" that cannot be proven , touched, observed, or measured , i'd agree with you .

As to whether there's a point (there), I think that's what the thread is about, and I think the jury is still out. (but hey - they'd quickly rally if you produced any of that evidence you talk about).

Read the post I referred. Apparently a god can't be proven because he/she/it cannot be touched, observed or measured. The illogic of this claim is apparent when one realises there are many things that exist which cannot be touched, observed or measured. Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.

 

[BHP]

When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?.

Are you saying that God is an idea? this is precisely my point. God is not real, just an idea. Ideas can be measured, see further below.

People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
1) The universe created itself
2) The universe is uncreated
3) Something/someone created the universe

1) is impossible. It would need to exist prior to itself in order to create itself.
2) has been shown wrong. The universe had a beginning.
3) hence, something/someone created the universe

3) is you jumping to conclusions. You have not made a valid argument at all. Why does "the Universe exists" = "God created it"?

While this does not prove God, it shows the universe had a creator. Some entity brought it into existence.

It shows nothing of the sort.

Who created the creator? This is the old parlour trick of infinite causal regresses which are just logically impossible. Something somewhere exists causelessly,

Oh its a trick is it. I thought it was a reasonable question. Is it your argument that God can exist causelessly but the universe cannot? If so why?

Some scientists, not liking the idea of God, have posited a multiverse of billions of universes. Hey presto! A god to fill in the gaps. We'll just call it a multiverse, wave a cloth and hope no-one notices it is not a scientific hypothesis because it CANNOT be tested by the methods of science as one cannot get outside this universe in order to check out its feasibility. So whether or not you like it, ultimately everyone makes certain basic assumptions about reality which are untestable and unprovable. Pick one.

I think you have done a very good job of proving my point. Every argument or theory about the creation of the universe is as valid as any other, including the God argument, so why believe in that particular one?

Why do you have to pick one??

You have picked one based on blind faith. I refuse to pick one until i see proof.

Just don't consider yourself more logical, rational or enlightened because you picked a different one to someone else.

Quite the contrary. Reread my original post. I do NOT think i am more logical, rational or enlightened than anyone else. I specifically stated that I DON'T know how the universe came into existence and will probably never know. What i object to is people telling me it was God when they have nothing to back it up. It could have been God, a multiverse, a Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever, who knows?

This I think is the crux of the whole God debate. Some people can accept not knowing others cannot.

Read the post I referred. Apparently a god can't be proven because he/she/it cannot be touched, observed or measured. The illogic of this claim is apparent when one realises there are many things that exist which cannot be touched, observed or measured. Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.

Again, are you saying God is an idea? In any case ideas can certainly be measured. Ideas occur in the brain as a series of complex electric impulses that can be measured.

Science is basically knowledge. It can also be measured in the brain, in a book, in a computer, a drawing etc.

Please name some of the "many things" that cannot be touched, measured or observed.

I know this debate can be quite emotive so please do not take my comments in a personal way, I am simply trying to debate this topic.

 

[Rapture]

Science cannot be touched, observed or measured for example. It is an idea. But it seems to be worshiped by many here.

Ahhhh .... but Science involves logical thinking , not just accepting . It makes a logicall progression to its conclusion , offering explanations on the way . It doesn't need to fill the gap with a GOD . Scientist are more interested in natural explanation rather than the supernatural .

GOD's existance, on the other hand , is due to theists not able to explain various phenomena such as the origin of the universe , the existance of living matter . There was no logic reasoning behind the existance of a GOD appart from it ( meaning the Universe... living mater ... ) exists therefore it must be the hand of GOD .

To use Plato's words , to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation .

I'd rather worship something that can offers me results rather than demand my blind faith .

 

[Pat]

Whilst I don't normally openly criticise ones beliefs in front of them I find it very difficult to understand ones justifications for believing in a god or religion.
I guess it comes down to the fact that its a human trait to have to justify life, love, death, etc. I think it is a weak and medieval thought to believe that something/someone is controlling creation and creations just because we don't have definitive proof otherwise.
The idea that the universe was created is ludicrous. Why make up some extravagant story about a supreme being? I think we need to look at the time period these thoughts became staple to answer this. Religious groups had enormous power and would do anything to keep it.
I'm surprised with the number of people in this thread believe in god. I would have thought that all here were reasonably-logically thinking individuals (with the collective aim of this forum) would stand back and questions what is force fed to a large number of us.
Surely we all can understand evolution. We see it every day of our lives, it might not be to the extent us forming into horned, red skinned, pointy tailed beings but more to the tune of learning from mistakes we make.
The one with the most control over our own lives is ourselves.

There is a difference between god and religion. Because you believe in god does not mean you believe in religious mumble jumble.

When was the last time you observed/touched/measured an idea?



People actually still think this is a logical objection?! There are only three possibilities.
1) The universe created itself
2) The universe is uncreated
3) Something/someone created the universe

1) is impossible. It would need to exist prior to itself in order to create itself.
2) has been shown wrong. The universe had a beginning.
3) hence, something/someone created the universe

It has not been shown that the universe had a beginning, scientists have guestimated to a few milliseconds after a guestimated big bang. Not everything needs a beginning, human misconception.
The universe has always been and always will be. The universe and every element within is god.
Maybe the universe expands and contracts every so many billion/trillion/googolplex years???

 

[onemore]

Question: Is there a God

My answer :Not sure
I do think thou that we live a life in a physical state then go on to live in a non physical state.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Are you saying that God is an idea? this is precisely my point. God is not real, just an idea. Ideas can be measured, see further below.

Really? How do you know God/a god is not real? An idea cannot be measured. All you can measure/observe is the way in which a brain records or processes information. You can even observe the way an idea plays out in real life. But the idea itself is an entity. An idea can exist independently of a brain or it could not be recorded or communicated.

3) is you jumping to conclusions. You have not made a valid argument at all. Why does "the Universe exists" = "God created it"?

Is you not reading closely. I did not say God created it. (3) states something/someone created it. That does not constrain it to any particular god or even a god - merely an entity capable of bringing this universe into being. That I ultimately accept that entity as God is further down the chain after reasoning from the fact that "Something created the universe" to the question "What kind of properties would a universe-creating entity possess?"

Is it your argument that God can exist causelessly but the universe cannot? If so why?

As already stated there are only 3 possibilities. 1 and 2 are ruled out, leaving 3. If you can think of some alternative to 1, 2 or 3 please share it. The universe cannot exist causelessly because it had a beginning. Even if someone accepts a multiverse (translation: god of the gaps) than one is accepting the multiverse in some way caused this universe. Not everything needs a cause. Only things that begin to exist need a causal explanation. To posit a multiverse is no more an explanation that to posit a god. Either must be accepted on faith because there is no way to get outside this universe to see what else is going on. If you are happy with "I don't know" then fine.

I think you have done a very good job of proving my point. Every argument or theory about the creation of the universe is as valid as any other, including the God argument, so why believe in that particular one?

Ockhams razor. Don't multiply entities beyond that which is sufficient to explain. And a personal God better explains other data such as the existence of consciousness and self-aware entities who are able to ask "What? Why?"

Why do you have to pick one??

I'm not saying you do. I'm sure you can go through life perfectly happy with a kind of agnosticism.

You have picked one based on blind faith. I refuse to pick one until i see proof.

Actually no. I have picked one after considering as much information as my brain can handle and process. Blind faith would be closing my eyes, going "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo" and then obstinately believing whatever option was selected. If you don't wish to add more emotiveness to the discussion then restrain from perjorative terms like "Blind faith" which is no more than an uninformed value judgement as you have no idea how much thought another has put into their worldview.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Not everything needs a beginning, human misconception.

Nope. Everything that begins to exist needs a causal explanation. Inescapable fact.

The universe has always been and always will be.

Not possible. If that were the case then all energy available to do work would already have been used and the universe would now be either a compressed energyless point or a cold, dark space-time continuum.

The universe and every element within is god.

How is this not religious mumbo jumbo?

 

[MS+Tradesim]

To use Plato's words , to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation .

Really? To say "the multiverse did it" is not to explain anything but to wave the hand and offer an excuse for not having an explanation. Yet many in the scientific community consider it a live option even though it is scientifically untestable.

God (or a god) either exists or does not exist irrespective of anybody's belief about it/them. Waving your hand and saying the magic words "Abracadabra!" no more dispels God than theists believing in god causes it to exist.

BTW, logic is not the possession of science. Both logic and philosophy precede science and are necessary for doing it. Ignoring this fact is the very reason so many go beyond what science can explain and declare that "Science has dispelled god". God is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[ithatheekret]

Science is theory , accepted until proven wrong or a disaster ceases the economic worth sought . The technologies of today are it's banners .
So too , is global warming , the expansion of warfare and many other advances put to use against whomever the maker or owner likes .
It has no morales .

Belief in God is a faith . Usually endowed with morales .

Both have been used to attack ones fellow mankind , but both can't be totally right .
The manipulation of both have ensured that , the church groups with their perverse conduct , the science groups with their theories and blundering mistakes .

The science group fear the believer or hold them in contempt , due to the input and barriers in place , usually a product of morales . Many of the faith group fear the unmoralistic approaches in science or the ways in which they achieve them .




The choice is yours .

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Hopefully, my final post in this thread:

It is very easy to discuss all this abstractly. I've spent years studying philosophy and religion in both formal and private settings. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.

I now find for me that the important questions are....

Am I a better person?
Am I less selfish?
How can I positively impact others?
How can I use my wealth to get the best bang for my buck in terms of funding organisations working to eradicate poverty, preventable disease, sex slave trade, education and development in third world nations, worthwhile causes in Australia etc?

 

[mark70920]

Science is theory , accepted until proven wrong or a disaster ceases the economic worth sought . The technologies of today are it's banners .
So too , is global warming , the expansion of warfare and many other advances put to use against whomever the maker or owner likes .
It has no morales .

Belief in God is a faith . Usually endowed with morales .

Both have been used to attack ones fellow mankind , but both can't be totally right .
The manipulation of both have ensured that , the church groups with their perverse conduct , the science groups with their theories and blundering mistakes .

The science group fear the believer or hold them in contempt , due to the input and barriers in place , usually a product of morales . Many of the faith group fear the unmoralistic approaches in science or the ways in which they achieve them .




The choice is yours .

Belief in God is a faith . Usually endowed with morales .

Belief in God is usually taught by parents to their children as an absolute.
So when you look at anything outside this you need to suspend your belief system to be able to contemplate that your parents may have been mistaken.
It just easier to look for things that support what you were taught. Like the Intelligent design theory, which has more holes in it than swiss cheese , but it makes educated believers feel better about their sceintific pursuits.
Morales are only a loose set of rules follow by the faithfull , they can be suspend and ignore for the greater good of the faith at anytime eg Crusades , holy wars,Jihad,Inquisitions,witch trails etc etc etc.
We may one day realise helping each other comes with it own rewards here in the real world and we don't need the carrot of a heavenly after life to do the right thing.

 

[ithatheekret]

Perhaps I should have said Faith can be mirrored to an espirit de corps

 

[2020hindsight]

1. I've been an atheist. I'm now a believer. There are others who have gone the opposite direction.

2. I am now far more interested in the practical outcome of belief or disbelief.

1. I'm one that has gone in the other direction
2. like you, (and Richard Dawkins) I am also interested in the practical outcomes of these beliefs - and there's a heap of evidence in his lectures that suggest that belief can lead to big problems - total scientific blindness for a start.
3. PS MST if you've studied this for years, you would have come up against this on day 1

... at least as far as classical religious teachings go.

Hey if you accept that evolution is factual, that the entire religion thing is based on a form of superstition, but that there are practical benefits to "god" despite his being intellectually unjustifiable - then that's different - we'd agree.

 

[Nyden]

Oh, how I wish I believed in a god. Or an afterlife for that matter, wouldn't be as terrified as I am

Question to ASF'ers, does lack of belief in god, or for that matter - an afterlife, make the prospect of death all the more frightening? Just disappearing, ceasing to exist.

 

[2020hindsight]

Just disappearing, ceasing to exist.

Nyden - as willie would have put it ...

"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. "

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi...d=is+rounded+with+a+sleep.+sir,+i+am+vex'd;#w

 

[Nyden]

Nyden - as willie have put it ...

"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. "

Well, to burst your bubble - dreams can be explained scientifically, they're not magic :

Then again, I don't even remember the last time I dreamt

Am I to assume you're religious? Can I ask - how do you manage to just ignore science, & logic? I mean; one begins to doubt the existance of Santa at a young enough age, what keeps "god" alive in your daily life?

 

[2020hindsight]

Well, to burst your bubble - dreams can be explained scientifically, they're not magic :

Then again, I don't even remember the last time I dreamt

Am I to assume you're religious? Can I ask - how do you manage to just ignore science, & logic? I mean; one begins to doubt the existance of Santa at a young enough age, what keeps "god" alive in your daily life?

Am I to assume that you are one of that cult of dyslexics - used to meet at the cemetery to worship Santa

PS I am a pantheist - Mother Nature will do me just fine - but in the end, she expects us to respect the planet she's given us to look after ..

And also as the self styled Lords of Creation , our responsibilities go beyond the selfish interests of mankind

PS I think you are misunderstanding Willie there - but no biggie
You realise of course he is talking about a hypothesis that we have been (and will be) asleep for an eternity in both directions - apart from "our little lives" :2two cents

so no , you're not bursting bubbles. lol.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=82450&highlight=poisoning#post82450

PS I find science fascinating - but also confusing almost humourous in its weirdness at times
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88164&highlight=apples#post88164

 

[Wysiwyg]

PS I am a pantheist - Mother Nature will do me just fine - but in the end, she expects us to respect the planet she's given us to look after ..And also as the self styled Lords of Creation , our responsibilities go beyond the selfish interests of mankind

G`evening, i don`t think nature `expects` us to respect the planet.Why nature allowed the expansion of thought and (for want of a better word) intelligence in the first place is unknown and certainly not self preserving but more self destructing.

So it makes me wonder why thought has been allowed to continue when life does not need thought to exist.