This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is there a GOD?

Do you believe in GOD?

  • Absolutely no question--I know

    Votes: 150 25.6%
  • I cannot know for sure--but strongly believe in the existance of god

    Votes: 71 12.1%
  • I am very uncertain but inclined to believe in god

    Votes: 35 6.0%
  • God's existance is equally probable and improbable

    Votes: 51 8.7%
  • I dont think the existance of god is probable

    Votes: 112 19.1%
  • I know there is no GOD we are a random quirk of nature

    Votes: 167 28.5%

  • Total voters
    586
Wayne
You say that it's absurd to refer to the origins (apparent miracle) of life as a spontaneous springing from primeval mud ....

1. Most people in the poll seem to think it's from "a random quirk of nature"
Or perhaps that's a typo -
maybe that's "a random quick of nature"
maybe "a random quickie of nature"?

2. We used to have coed mud wrestling when I was a student, and I'd be surprised if there weren't a few kids born as a result.

3. As someone said once "Everyone wonders whether it is possible to make life in a laboratory - hek it's easy, just give me an attractive laboratory assistant"

4. when I said most people in the poll think its random, (evolutionist), it's only by a short head, possibly in a photo finish, from those who think there's no question God exists and ( presumably) played a roll (assumption on my part - people in the first group may still believe in a non-interventionist God I guess - who simply set the ball rolling and sitting back as someone said watching us from his armchair, beer in hand, laughing at our antics -- possibly sending us a "task" like a cyclone to spice things up a bit - bit like Big Brother really)

5. This question is not for you so much as those who belong to the first group...

what shape is this god you know exists? does it have eyes? hands? etc

I notice for instance that Xenophane thinks of it as a spherical God - just wonder if it's more difficult to pray to something spherical , possibly without eyes, than a handsome anglosaxon aged gentleman, albeit badly in need of a haircut .

6. Obviously incidentally Mohammed looks like his followers - and it will be a long time before Arabs follow a Jew like Jesus, however great his teachings (two cents). "If horses could draw etc etc "

7. Of all my distant relations, first was the prodigal son
I get to exercise 10 trillion body cells, proto-the-zoan had one
Funny how fashions have shifted, proto you son-of-a-gun,
You didn't get to have one raw emotion, and I write strange ditties for fun
 

I believe the following explains it. Even if it all started with a Big Bang things could not have just randomly fallen in place; the sheer orderliness and intricacy of every little detail tells me that much is quite impossible.


We humans are the superior beings in the universe (discounting aliens, I haven't seen any nor evidence of any so I don't know of any that exists). If we find it so difficult to get something started AND maintain it even for our own lifetimes what/who else can?


I rest my case.
 
Does God exist?

Where did the Universe come from?

The creation, cause or origin of the Universe (and thus the earth, life, consciousness and everything we know), is fundamentally unable to be determined by science, and therefore can only be known (or imagined) by faith.

For that matter, nothing can be known without an observer's perception, and therefore nothing can be known or imagined without faith. I think, therefore I am, is a statement of faith. Any physicist would agree with this.

The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy. Unfortunately this creates the never ending turtle question of where did God come from? By definition God is eternal and Uncreate, so technically the question is answered...but as such an answer can only be accepted in faith and remain unproven, we haven't really got anywhere!

OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God.

And besides, there are fundamental questions that cannot in principle ever be answered from within a system (such as the Universe) without information from outside of the system.

So, unless God reveals himself to the observer in a convincing way, the question of God's existence becomes a value judgment as to whether we believe life or the Universe has meaning, or design or purpose, or is in some sense just too good to be a fluke. Perhaps it is our sense of beauty, our ability to understand mathematics, and our ability to imagine ourselves outside of ourselves that is as good an indicator as anything that there is more to life and the Universe than mere matter and energy.

btw, Christians believe that God revealed himself in the man Jesus Christ, and that the Bible is an inspired book; therefore Christians believe that the Bible is a source of information from outside of the Universe and that it conveys information that could not have been sourced from within the Universe. But thats another story.
 

Where did God come from? I don't really know. As long as God exists, that's good enough for me

OTOH....if we could test God, he wouldn't be God.

That you gotta seek God and find out why he'd still be God in spite of our testing
 
God of some sort---define some sort.
Well we get into the field of belief and postulation here. Presuming for a moment there definitely IS a God, what IS God. I'll readily admit I have NFI so just for discussion:

Well there is the judeo/christian/muslim model. 'nuff said there as we all know that one.

Then there is the pantheistic or pantheistic like models. (see Dukey's post below.)

Among these is the concept of "Tao", which doesn't attempt to describe a God per se', but acknowledges... umm, let's call it spirituality. To quote the Tao on Tao.

Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.

Again along these lines is the concept as put forth by $20shoes, That everything is God, we are all merely God experiencing himself.

Then there are the various "New Age" models.

I could go on and there are several more.

Which is right? I don't know. None maybe. Certain ones ring true to me but acknowledge it could be a meme resurfacing. I just try to stay open and don't try to verbalize my own concept too much.

And an interesting thought process at that. Consideration of the universe as a whole certainly makes many arguments along these lines ridiculous. Certainly, why can there not be some life "evolving" elsewhere. Of course there can!

But it doesn't remove the core issue of the discussion at hand IMO, just broadens the parameters. Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate. That is the crux of my argument against a random occurrence... anywhere.

This begs the question, Did "God" snap his fingers (to default to the judeo/christian model for the sake of discussion) and... Shazam!? We have to acknowledge this where the Dawkinettes derive their difficulties with God concepts as it would require the suspension of the irrefutable physical laws of the universe as we know them. This would appear to be equally absurd.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

Stalemate?
 
Does God exist?
The Big Bang is probably the greatest modern "proof" we have of God's existence, because appeal to God is the simplest (only?) answer to explain the origin of all matter and energy.

Moses,(great name for a subject like this!) so once again should we rely on a god to fill the gaps in our science? Becuause we dont have the answers this proves there is a god? Im a bit miffed by this rationale!
 
BTW

A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.

Cheers everyone.
 
Any life form if spontaneously generated in the beginning must still perform certain biological functions to survive and duplicate.

The dinosaurs qualified until rendered extinct through no fault of their own.
Just imagine for a moment that that didnt occur and man did not evolve.

Where then God and religion.
It was not handed to us from the dinosaurs.

As Mousie pointed out, both sides must revert to "faith" as neither can be definitively proven.

I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
Its happening all the time.
 
I cant see how evolution can be argued against.
Its happening all the time.
I don't think evolution can be argued against either, merely the initiating process.

That life spontaneously generated from muck (and not even organic muck... well organic in the sense of containing carbon, but not in the sense of having previously contained life) is an article of faith as it cannot be proven or reproduced.

We must have a starting point for life to evolve from and this is where the problem occurs. Study what even a single cell bacteria must do to survive and duplicate and we have a problem as to how it kicked itself off in the very beginning.
 
good on ya dukey
yep - reckon I'm a pantheist as well of the naturalist subsect (possibly classical in some respects (on the subject of blood cells for instance lol - see below)

Interesting that Sitting Bull and Einstein were both pantheists, lol
I think I'm right in quoting him ..... during the deals over land during the disastrous Indian wars ( disastrous for the INdian anyway)

"Sell land? - one might as well sell the sun, and the rivers and the lakes, and the forests, and the wind and the air" (seriously paraphrased)
BTW, that quote was Sitting Bull, not Einstein
PS It may not even be Sitting Bull - I just remember seeing it in the Museum in St Louis about 30 years ago lol. (the one associated with the big arch that obviously inspired MacDonalds lol) - hence bound to be someone else, and completely different words.
 

As with anything worthy there's always red herrings and cheap copies.

I know you're probably only navel gazing but if you are genuinely interested and you look hard and long enough the genuine article is fairly obvious.

There's no excuses really.
 
BTW

A cracking discussion going on here. So often these turn to sh!te. But this has been tops.

Cheers everyone.
ditto that!
If bullmarket was still around this thread would have turned to **** on the very first page
Good thread tech
 
Nice little article on Einstein.

Did Albert Einstein Believe in a Personal God?
by Rich Deem

I get a fair amount of e-mail about Albert Einstein's quote1 on the homepage of Evidence for God from Science, so I thought it would be good to clarify the matter. Atheists object to the use of the quote, since Einstein might best be described as an agnostic.2 Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth?

Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.

These days, those who fail to understand the purpose of evil not only reject the concept of a personal God, but also reject the concept of God's existence altogether. If you are an agnostic or atheist, my goal for you would be to recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God. Then, go beyond Einstein's faulty understanding of the purpose of the universe and consider the Christian explanation for the purpose of human life and why evil must exist in this world.
 
So what is the "genuine article"?
 

What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."
 

Great thread peoples - most interesting reading various ideas on God and religion.

2020 - Great quote from Sitting Bull (or someone?) - I expect most American Indian's spirituality would fall within the realm of Pantheism - though probably one with a 'more shamanistic' bent.

I really think the 'Everything is God' concept of Pantheism (some folks say Nature or the Universe or Universal, some say Cosmos - but it's all the same) could potentially provide a bridge between religion and science - the main obstacle that must be overcome is peoples need to insist on an 'anthropomorphic' god. - that is a god who has human characteristics such as consciousness and human feelings etc..
Once you get past that and see the physical world as a result of timeless processes according to the laws of physics etc - then then you really do feel the same 'closeness' with God (ie Nature) the religious folks speak of. I feel the awesome power of Nature everytime I see the moon, or get dumped by a wave, or stop to inspect a 'perfectly imperfect' flower.
Pantheism also fosters a more realistic positioning of Humans WITHIN Nature as opposed to ABOVE or even AGAINST nature which is the philosophical position for Humans which tends to be borne out of standard religions. If we see ourselves as being 'part of sacred Nature', then it's simply a natural extension to want to protect and preserve Nature(God) to the extent possible.

As for some kind of life after death - I happily expect (I don't know - cause I havn't died... yet) that my continuance after death will take a number of forms.
1. will be in the form of my body being recycled back into Nature (ie God) and recycled forever more, through the cosmos, stars etc. (of course I'm talking extreme geological time here).
2. through my genes (presuming I have kids);
3. and also through my ideas, communications and actions which propagate from person to person, both directly and indirectly (ie via the internet! etc).

Hell... I could even become immortal (at least for the span of future human existence) by writing a best seller!!!! If guys like Plato and Einstein and yes - Sitting Bull don't qualify as immortal - then who does????????

The Wikipedia article mentions some different varieties of Pantheism - Most modern Pantheists (at least in the west) probably fall under 'Scientific Pantheism' - which obviously thinks of 'scientific' concepts/processes such as evolution as the means of development of this Nature/God of which we are all a part.

Anyway just some more thoughts on the Nature of God (pun DEFINITELY intended)
Hope I don't offend anyone with my word count this time...
 
A post from another forum I found with regards to genuine articles and whatnot.

I found it fascinating.

<EDIT> It looks as though this video has been taken down I'll try and find it elsewhere)
 
recognize what Albert Einstein understood about the universe - that its amazing design demands the existence of a creator God.

That's what I'd been saying all along; didn't know that Einstein held the same view!

What colossal arrogance. Running down Einstein because he dared hold a different view. "Yes, he was a scientific genius but I know better when it comes to god because my holy book of choice says so...."

However, what you decide to do after understanding Einstein's (and my) point is entirely up to you. The title of this thread is "Is there a GOD?" and my answer is emphatically YES. I'll leave it at that
 

Hi retro..incisive post from you.

The passage I highlighted is too broad for me to understand.The word universe is being used when I think that human being is what is meant.My reasoning .. the universe is perfect , it is human mind that is not perfect.

Other than that I think the post is a good case for god and christianity as an explanation of things.Definately convincing.

Do you know why A.Einstein was considered brilliant.Did he have very good recall of memory or were his thoughts new.
 

Retro - I think the author is making some 'quantum leaps' of his own regarding Einsteins reasons for dismissing an anthropomorphic God - in the section marked in blue. Einstein had many reasons to 'disbelieve' - and those mentioned above - while completely valid in my view - weren't his only reasons.
Here a couple of direct quotes from the man himself which may serve to explain... from Einstein - Science and Religion website

I thoroughly recommend the Biography: 'Einstein - A Life' as a great read about Uncle Albert. Not sure of the Author...
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...