Is there a GOD?

[bulldoza]

And that is just it Bulldozer, your faith is a belief no more nor less......
God bulldozer?

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Of course my faith is a belief and I have commented previously that based on the evidence I have seen and from personal life experiences I am convinced God exists.

I assume that the implied logic in your above quote would also mean that the non-believers 'faith' on God's non-existance is also simply their beliefs because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves God's existence.

 

[explod]

=$20shoes;535242]One possible belief, which I tend to subscribe to is Pantheism, where God is not of itself separate or transcendent from the universe but is himself all that is known and unkown with respect to THE universe and other universes. In this respect absolutely everything is God being God.

MS+Tradesim and I covered the cosmological question some pages back. Although he wouldn't agree with all these assertions we came close to the heart of the matter from a Pantheistic viewpoint ( and yes, just another belief). Here is a summary of my own assertions from that discussion:

Notice the different font and the style grammer would indicate the assertions have come from some other source. It would be interesting for the discussion to know the author for further study if you would be kind enough to provide that 20shoes

cheers explod

 

[bulldoza]

If the "truth" is so apparent, why is it that so many others that have learnt, as you did, ended up as non-believers?

Sorry, no point asking me. You should be asking them.

I'm going to watch the tail end of the cricket, if it's dtill going and then the Olympics - I'll pop in tommorow.

Good night.

 

[explod]

I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Of course my faith is a belief and I have commented previously that based on the evidence I have seen and from personal life experiences I am convinced God exists.

I assume that the implied logic in your above quote would also mean that the non-believers 'faith' on God's non-existance is also simply their beliefs because there is no 'hard evidence' that proves or disproves God's existence.

So you admit there is no hard evidence, that is a good.

The crux are the two seperate words of belief on the one hand and reason on the other. I do not know if there is a God or not because by reasoning I cannot find one. I remember reading metaphysics as a youngster and some time later realising that it was an attempt to substantiate belief with reason. At the end of the day for example there is no life in a rock(of course something may be living within it) but, it may have the potential.

 

[nunthewiser]

Could this be true also ?

I mean it has the same opinionated evidence as all the other God reasoning here .

No offense intended ( sincere) just making a point that all arguments that God is real are merely based on opinion and heresay from what i can see.

Jesus was super-smart gay, says Elton John
From correspondents in London From: NewsCore February 19, 2010 9:30AM
Elton John has his own spin on what Jesus was like / AP file Source: AP
APPARENTLY, Elton John didn't give up being controversial for Lent.

The flamboyant recording artist pontificated to Parade magazine for this week's issue on his view of Christianity.

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/weird-true-f...-says-elton-john/story-e6frflri-1225832066801

 

[roland]

God is a bacteria.

In the bible (which we all know is the definitive book on universal creation), GOD created man in his own image. I just hope GOD evolved as well as we did

 

[Wysiwyg]

Within all this “nothingness” there was somehow, one infinitely dense and bloody hot ball of "something". That "something" contained all matter, and time would start ticking from the moment this matter was unfurled. But before this unfurling, this hot dense pea sized ball of matter/energy/time must have been enveloped by something (though, not space - there was no space). The nothing surrounding this something must, logically speaking, be so infinitely infinite in its nothingness that it could be quite capable of enveloping and absorbing the pea sized density as it unfurled and proceeded to infinitely expand. That is, there must be "something" into which we expand and hence there must be a finite border at the edge of the universe, which once crossed places us into "nothingness".

We see creation and destruction in the universe and assume along with scientific study that there was a beginning. A starting point. But does there have to be a beginning to the greater expanse. From as you type, before the so called big bang there was likely nothingness but we know there cannot be existence without duration. There would always have been duration and hence there was always existence. No beginning. The infinite time frame.



"It is a hypothetical exercise."

Okay.

 

[Trembling Hand]

Could this be true also ?

"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," he said.

Nah nun he must of been bi. Didn't he shag Mary Magdalene?

So says the new bible by the 13th apostle - Dan Brown

 

[jonojpsg]

Couple of points:

Nun - same goes for arguments that God is not real, ie they are based on opinion and hearsay.

Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.

Love the cosmology though

 

[Trembling Hand]

Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.

I dunno, that s!ite trade of yours was dust & dead yet it nearly came to life.

 

[Mr J]

ie life from non-life.

Perhaps everything is alive?

 

[nunthewiser]

Nah nun he must of been bi. Didn't he shag Mary Magdalene?

So says the new bible by the 13th apostle - Dan Brown

LOL

I would luv to continue the chat in regards to Jesus's true sexuality preferences but i think it may disrupt the thread ................ But hang on . if we tell enough people ,won't it make it true a bit further down the track?

 

[spooly74]

Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It only explains how life evolved once it appeared.

Read a book ffs.

 

[Hedders]

getting away from the topic here.
Yes science can only account up to the Big bang. Though to assume that there is a 'before' 'outside' the universe assumes that time exists outside the universe and that there is an outside to the universe. You are applying the internal conditions of our universe to what may be 'outside' of it.

Invoking infinity is difficult as it is infinite. In an infinite universe everything is possible an infinite number of times. There will be infinite copies of yourself living on infinite identical worlds doing exactly what you are doing while an infinite number of other you's will be living infinitely variable lives on infinitely different worlds. it quickly becomes preposterous.

Infinity, while it is a neat concept, does not work.
So far it seems that in our universe time goes one way. While there are hypotheses regarding wormholes and ancient cosmic strings e.t.c. linking bits of the universe via the 'outside' they represent localised links and not a general reversal of the flow of time.
You are limiting your thought to three dimensions here and assuming that the universe exists within three dimensions.

There is a handy little analogue that was explained to me about the nature of the inconceivability of dimensions. You start with a 1 dimensional universe (essentially a line with no height or width) populated by 1 dimensional beings who can only travel in one dimension along this universe. They see their universe in zero dimensions (i.e. a dot) though they understand that their universe actually is one dimensional. Now if that universe was curved in the second dimension (i.e. it was actually shaped like a circle) the one dimensional beings could keep going in one direction and return to their starting point, unable to comprehend how they got there. So you have a one dimensional universe populated by one dimensional beings that travel in one dimension, view their universe in zero dimensions and perceive their universe to be one dimensional while it is curved in two dimensions.

Now if you have a two dimensional universe (a flat plane with no height) populated by two dimensional beings. They will be able to move in two dimensions, they will see their universe in one dimension (a line) and will understand that their universe is two dimensional. That universe can be curved in the third dimension (a ball shape) though the two dimensional beings would not be able to comprehend this.

Then you get to us. We live in a three dimensional universe, we move in three dimensions. We understand that our universe is three dimensional while we view it in two dimensions (we see 3D as we have two eyes producing a stereoscopic image from the two 2D images out eyes collect). Now try and imagine the universe curved in the fourth dimension.

A neat little exercise, it may seem a little pointless until you consider that the most successful models at describing the universe we see today require much more than 4 dimensions. Superstring theory has the fundamental building blocks of the universe vibrating in the 3 main dimensions that we know, and also in 8 or more tiny curled up dimensions that we cannot perceive. Then you start talking M-brane or p-brane theory where they have postulated that the universe may be created by two 4 dimensional branes (4-branes) bumping into each other within a 5 dimensional space.

Sounds hair braned but these models explain what is being seen at the quantum levels. They work.

It seems a lot of religions have issues with the implications of evolution. Though evolution seems like such a straight forward concept that works. Quite irrefutable. When you start looking at the universe at the quantum level - that is when it starts to get really weird. You have super strings vibrating in 10 dimensions, you have quantum fluctuations generating particle pairs out of nothing, you have sub atomic particles that need to be spun 720 degrees before they appear as they did before they were spun. This is the stuff that I expect would send people scurrying back to their bibles claiming it is god at work. Not the simplistic Theory of Evolution.

I'm apparently one of the scurriers going back to the Bible then- not necessarily to gain insight into Superstring Theory, or evolutionary processes mind you! With every advance in science, more questions crop up, and that's great- we should never give up the pursuit. I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point. Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions. But, beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity. For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.

As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself. It's certainly not an answer where advocates need any less faith than creationists- evolution can be handy for exaplaining life-preserving processes but it fails to explain why they need to be preserved.

 

[$20shoes]

Notice the different font and the style grammer would indicate the assertions have come from some other source. It would be interesting for the discussion to know the author for further study if you would be kind enough to provide that 20shoes

cheers explod

no other source except for me and MS+Tradesim having a chin wag about it last year on this thread. I copied out the passages and stitched them together so you would all know that it was being rehashed from my previous comments.


I have not bothered to counter some arguments to my assertions...WYSIWYG and Derty all see holes in my approach and I actually don't disagree. My suppositions can't be supported by science.

But from a faith perspective, this is where my personal leaning lies...

Damn...back to the drawing board.

 

[Sean K]

I think I commented here about 4 years ago.

No, in the modern religious sense.

The God of the current main religions is absolute pure myth. It's indisputable. Bible bashers should just stop and give up.

If you have a personal idea of God, s/he may exist somewhere, in some time.

In what state, is for you to explain.

Go ahead...

 

[spooly74]

I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved- almost as a starting point.

Such as?

we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you. And who knows, there might actually be 10 dimensions.

Are you referring to M-theory, with 11 possible dimensions?
At least this faith can be tested and will be universally accepted as bull**** if proven false.

I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter,

Nucleosynthesis

As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself.

Of course it's counter Creationist stupidity, and as for it not being an answer, that depends entirely on your question.

 

[springhill]

Evolution - nah, while I agree that micro evolution is a cert, I still can't hold to a theory that is based on an initial step that seems impossible, ie life from non-life.

Ever seen Frankenstein? Or Return Of The Living Dead? All it takes is a huge amount of electricity or a toxic substance spill.....

 

[Ato]

I'm willing to be someone's god...

Anyone?

 

[derty]

I am intruiged though by the number of theories that insist a being of greater intelligence cannot possibly be involved

None of these hypotheses insist that a greater intelligence/God/creator cannot be involved. It's just that they do not require one to be involved.

Meanwhile we place our faith in 10 dimensional models because they might fit with what we know now- this still requires faith mind you.

Most of these hypotheses are theoretical and are a result of mathematical deduction from existing equations and hypotheses. People take the maths to new places and the results predict the behaviour of space and time and it's constituents. When the predictions of the equations and models fit with empirical observations these hypotheses begin to become theories that are continually modified and they in turn better explain the universe or they begin to break down. For people like you and me who cannot understand the equations and derivations there is a degree of faith involved. But for the physicists who do the work there is no need of faith, there may be assumptions, but no faith.

beyond the notion of God, whose abilities extend way beyond ours, creating the universe, I cannot reconcile the fact that lifeless sub-atomic particles, no matter how many dimensions they exist in, chose to come together to form atoms, which then bond in a structure that gave rise to intracellular matter, which "randomly" came together with other neccessary intracellular matter to form a cell, which then suddenly became a living, replicating entity.

The formation of atoms (fusion) is not by choice, atomic nuclei do not want to come together. They need to be made to come together and that requires intense heat and pressure, like is found in the interior of suns. Our Sun currently is fusing hydrogen nuclei together to form helium nuclei. The energy within the Sun overcomes the force of electrostatic repulsion and once forced close enough together the very powerful but incredibly short range Strong Nuclear Force locks the protons and neutrons together.
As for the creation of organic molecules (carbon based/linked molecules) certain atoms have affinities for each other and easily create bonds. There are a multitude of naturally occurring organic molecules that have been identified within the solar system and within interstellar dust clouds. A sea rich in elements under a free-oxygen-less atmosphere with added heat will readily form simple and complex organic molecules. Once you start adding periods of 100's of millions to billions of years to the equation the probability of forming very complex molecules becomes very high and likely.

For you, you cannot see how matter can organise itself without the intervention of a creator. For me it is simply that one is not required.

For as far as we can break down the components that comprise sub-atomic matter, we're still left with the huge question of why they come together so precisely if they've been blown apart after a big bang.

As I stated before sub-atomic particles, atoms and molecules come together due to affinities and in some cases requiring the addition of significant energy. The four main forces that are stable currently in the universe are gravity, the electro-magnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. These all act at different distances with different strengths in different ways and hold the matter in the multitude of stable forms we see it in today.

Nothing was blown apart in the big bang, the energy that resulted from the big bang began to form particles that we today are familiar with as matter only after the universe had cooled sufficiently for protons and neutrons to remain intact. Following this cooling the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen (75%) and Helium (25%) - all the heavier elements have had to have been created since then within the cores of suns and as a result of supernovae.

As for evolution, I don't think it is completely counter Creationist theory. Aspects of evolution are clearly demonstrable, but evolution is not a complete answer in itself. It's certainly not an answer where advocates need any less faith than creationists- evolution can be handy for exaplaining life-preserving processes but it fails to explain why they need to be preserved.

Evolution (by means of natural selection) does not claim to be an answer in itself. It merely provides the mechanism for simpler life to become more complex and diversified.

Why do they need to be preserved? Are you saying that you believe that there is a higher purpose for life? Or that life requires a higher purpose to have meaning? That all sounds like a very anthropogenic construct.

Life does not need to be preserved. It perseveres. Those organisms that can persevere, do. There does not need to be any more to it than that.


The addition of a creator/god along with imposed meanings and purposes just unnecessarily complicates a process that with current scientific knowledge simply does not require one. The science doesn't preclude a God, he just isn't necessary.