Is God real post your thoughts!

[Lenticular_J]

There are differences between spiritual ideas and scientific ideas, it's all perspective, you might have four arms to me, yada yada yada.

 

 

 

Poster 1: LOL GOD DUM

 

Poster 2: I agree. Now I post smartly.

 

Poster 3: Well hold on a minute bucko. I can post smartly too!

 

Poster 2: Indeed. I respect you.

 

Poster 1: LOLOLOL

 

Poster 4: I BLIVE GOD LOLOLOLOLOL

 

 

 

Bah, this thread has gotten on my nerves these past twenty pages.

[Sly_Wizard]

If he's omnipotent, can he make a pie so big that he can't eat it? :o

 

 

 

He either can't make the pie or can't eat it.

 

 

 

I call this the pie paradox.

 

 

 

Pumpkin preferably.

 

 

 

There should be a rule stating people can't ask dumb questions. Even reworded, this is still the whole "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it" argument, which is nonsensical, to put it mildly. It's like asking if you can be taller than yourself or if a circle can be a square.

[Zierro]

If he's omnipotent, can he make a pie so big that he can't eat it? :o

 

 

 

He either can't make the pie or can't eat it.

 

 

 

I call this the pie paradox.

 

 

 

Pumpkin preferably.

 

 

 

There should be a rule stating people can't ask dumb questions. Even reworded, this is still the whole "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it" argument, which is nonsensical, to put it mildly. It's like asking if you can be taller than yourself or if a circle can be a square.

 

 

 

No matter how silly it sounds, I think his point still stands. You can't be taller than yourself and a circle can't be a square. Nothing can change that - and "nothing" includes the word "omnipotence". Omnipotence is just an imaginary term.

[Lenticular_J]

Yeah, I don't think God is omnipotent. I think the universe is, I guess. Since it made that whole idea and stuff. But I think God is the universe, and blabbity blabbity.

 

 

 

I think atoms are stupid. I'm tired of how complicated it gets.

 

 

 

I also think that elements are not really the purest form of substance.

 

 

 

Neener-neener.

[l0rd]

 

I also think that elements are not really the purest form of substance.

 

 

 

Obviously...

[raven_gaurd0]

Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it...

 

 

 

God will create the rock, then He'll break it and move it.

 

 

 

Can God create a pie so large even He cannot eat it...

 

 

 

God will create the pie, then he will eat it over a long period of time.

 

 

 

I don't know. These are very circular logical arguments.

 

 

 

Trying to figure out God is like trying to divide by 0. All you get is this:

 

 

 

[purfishx]

[hide=]

Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it...

 

 

 

God will create the rock, then He'll break it and move it.

 

 

 

Can God create a pie so large even He cannot eat it...

 

 

 

God will create the pie, then he will eat it over a long period of time.

 

 

 

I don't know. These are very circular logical arguments.

 

 

 

Trying to figure out God is like trying to divide by 0. All you get is this:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

I'd be scared as [bleep] if I saw that.

[raven_gaurd0]

[hide=]

Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it...

 

 

 

God will create the rock, then He'll break it and move it.

 

 

 

Can God create a pie so large even He cannot eat it...

 

 

 

God will create the pie, then he will eat it over a long period of time.

 

 

 

I don't know. These are very circular logical arguments.

 

 

 

Trying to figure out God is like trying to divide by 0. All you get is this:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

I'd be scared as [bleep] if I saw that.

 

 

 

Then don't divide by 0!

[Wisp]

[hide=]

Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it...

 

 

 

God will create the rock, then He'll break it and move it.

 

 

 

Can God create a pie so large even He cannot eat it...

 

 

 

God will create the pie, then he will eat it over a long period of time.

 

 

 

I don't know. These are very circular logical arguments.

 

 

 

Trying to figure out God is like trying to divide by 0. All you get is this:

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

I'd be scared as [bleep] if I saw that.

 

 

 

Then don't divide by 0!

 

Here's a quote:

 

 

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

 

Then he is not omnipotent.

 

Is he able, but no willing?

 

Then he is malevolent.

 

Is he both able, and willing?

 

Then whence cometh evil?

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

 

Then why call him god?

 

[Shinjula]

 

Yours and l0rd's theory that protons just float in and out of existence in an anarchic state is equally as ridiculous to the scientific method as the concept of God itself. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what was before the Big Bang for sure, and to rule out the possibility that there may have been some deity who orchestrated it, in the light of no evidence to rule that conclusion out, is bigoted and closed minded.

 

 

 

Its not a theory, its factual that subatomic particles can appear from absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

Not its not, its a theory, and sure its an interesting one too, and theres some good maths behind it, but as of yet there hasn't been any evidence which categorically shows it happening, for example, hawking radiation, which is one of the main ways scientists expect it to be found (particle and anti particle appearing at the event horizon of a black hole and one of the pair is suckied into the hole). The Casmir Effect is good evidence of 'virtual particles' but just because its makes sense if the particles exist, doesnt really mean that it proves that the particles exist.

 

 

 

Think of it this way, there arent any predictions one can use virtual particles for which have been found to be true, they have merely been used to explain things we have seen before but dont understand how they can work.

 

 

 

[This at least is what the internet seems to have offered me up when I double checked on information about virtual particles]

[l0rd]

 

Yours and l0rd's theory that protons just float in and out of existence in an anarchic state is equally as ridiculous to the scientific method as the concept of God itself. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what was before the Big Bang for sure, and to rule out the possibility that there may have been some deity who orchestrated it, in the light of no evidence to rule that conclusion out, is bigoted and closed minded.

 

 

 

Its not a theory, its factual that subatomic particles can appear from absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

Not its not, its a theory, and sure its an interesting one too, and theres some good maths behind it, but as of yet there hasn't been any evidence which categorically shows it happening, for example, hawking radiation, which is one of the main ways scientists expect it to be found (particle and anti particle appearing at the event horizon of a black hole and one of the pair is suckied into the hole). The Casmir Effect is good evidence of 'virtual particles' but just because its makes sense if the particles exist, doesnt really mean that it proves that the particles exist.

 

 

 

Think of it this way, there arent any predictions one can use virtual particles for which have been found to be true, they have merely been used to explain things we have seen before but dont understand how they can work.

 

 

 

[This at least is what the internet seems to have offered me up when I double checked on information about virtual particles]

 

 

 

Okay, although still a theory, it seems more reasonable than God creating what caused the big bang. Logically, we realize that it would be simpler to explain one thing rather than the explain the origin of god as well as the particles. Not to mention it seems to be a pretty credible theory and really explains it without delving into the spiritual world or any other dimension.

[Lenticular_J]

So because you believe it, and because there are more numbers involved, that makes it more reasonable?

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

Why can't God just be energy? Or space? Or dark matter? Or wind?

[Obtaurian]

So because you believe it, and because there are more numbers involved, that makes it more reasonable?

 

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

Why can't God just be energy? Or space? Or dark matter? Or wind?

 

 

 

Well, considering that numbers are really the only true constant in the universe, I'd say that they're pretty important.

[Lenticular_J]

How do we know they're constant? They appear to work on our little planet, to some extent our solar system, to some extent farther. Yet there are still mysteries no numbers can solve.

 

 

 

What about where the universe ends? Where do numbers go then?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe numbers as the one constant. I don't even think there are any constants. Numbers may be parallel to sentience, but what do I know.

[Shinjula]

Okay, although still a theory, it seems more reasonable than God creating what caused the big bang. Logically, we realize that it would be simpler to explain one thing rather than the explain the origin of god as well as the particles. Not to mention it seems to be a pretty credible theory and really explains it without delving into the spiritual world or any other dimension.

 

But dont you get that it only seems more reasonable to you because thats the way youve grown up?

 

We each of us have a sense in our heads of what 'feels right' and just as christians are using that sense to guide them in what they believe you are using it to guide you to your 'belief'. Even if virtual particles have been proven to exist they can never be shown to be behind the cause of the big bang because of the problems with singularities, at the point of a true singularity all physical laws will break down. Even if it can be shown that a pair of virtual particles were present at the big bang theres just no way to show a god (of any sort) didnt create them (after all its as good a method for creating a universe as any, probably better than some).

 

 

 

Isnt the true scientific mind one which says "I cannot know what happened here so I will not judge"?

 

 

 

Why not maintain an open mind about what the cause of the big bang is? I'm not suggesting for a moment that you accept a god created the universe. I'm suggesting that you accept that you dont know what happened and neither does anyone else. It's the only logical course of action in the situation.

[Obtaurian]

How do we know they're constant? They appear to work on our little planet, to some extent our solar system, to some extent farther. Yet there are still mysteries no numbers can solve.

 

 

 

What about where the universe ends? Where do numbers go then?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe numbers as the one constant. I don't even think there are any constants. Numbers may be parallel to sentience, but what do I know.

 

 

 

The universe "ends" where light is so spread out that it seemingly ceases to exist. Numbers explain that. As for the actual, physical end of the universe? We don't know, because as I said, there is no light there.

 

 

 

Everything in the universe is built upon numbers. The trick is to find those numbers. So far, we've been pretty successful on a small scale.

 

 

 

(Small relative to the universe.)

[l0rd]

Okay, although still a theory, it seems more reasonable than God creating what caused the big bang. Logically, we realize that it would be simpler to explain one thing rather than the explain the origin of god as well as the particles. Not to mention it seems to be a pretty credible theory and really explains it without delving into the spiritual world or any other dimension.

 

But dont you get that it only seems more reasonable to you because thats the way youve grown up?

 

We each of us have a sense in our heads of what 'feels right' and just as christians are using that sense to guide them in what they believe you are using it to guide you to your 'belief'. Even if virtual particles have been proven to exist they can never be shown to be behind the cause of the big bang because of the problems with singularities, at the point of a true singularity all physical laws will break down. Even if it can be shown that a pair of virtual particles were present at the big bang theres just no way to show a god (of any sort) didnt create them (after all its as good a method for creating a universe as any, probably better than some).

 

 

 

Isnt the true scientific mind one which says "I cannot know what happened here so I will not judge"?

 

 

 

Why not maintain an open mind about what the cause of the big bang is? I'm not suggesting for a moment that you accept a god created the universe. I'm suggesting that you accept that you dont know what happened and neither does anyone else. It's the only logical course of action in the situation.

 

 

 

Of course I don't know what happened, and never said I did. And I was not "grown up" to be an atheist, and actually know 0 atheists on a personal level in my life. I've pursued that topic without anyone that I know having the same views as me, don't assume that people are so subjective as to only have views shaped by the way they "grew up", I like to find out things for myself, and for this I think of myself more open-minded than most.

 

 

 

Disregarding my atheism, my argument was trying to explain where two things came from nothing (god and big bang particles) is less tangible than explaining one thing (just the particles).

 

 

 

If you woke up and found a brick of gold in your room, which materialized from nothing or you woke up in your room and found a bricks of gold and a brick of silver in your room materialized from nothing. The second one produced twice the product, and defied our belief that things can't materialized from nothing twice as much as when only one brick materialized, making it slightly more tangible.

[Shinjula]

And I was not "grown up" to be an atheist

 

Sorry youve misunderstood what i meant, i didnt mean you were taught to be an atheist, i meant, as youve grown in your life you have had different experiences, different choices to make and different things have become important to you, this has created many pathways in your brain which make up your decision making set, different life is different decision making set, something which seems entirely reasonable to you isnt considered reasonable to someone else there cant be a right or wrong to this as its impossible to do repeatable experiments on this - we cant take you and, say, Saruman (a quite commited christian from my observations) rewind your lives and you in his life and he in yours to see if you turn out as a christian and him an atheist.

 

 

 

When theres nice scientific evidence thats great and it makes it a lot easier to make judgements on something, but when something is outside the realms of science or when science cannot answer a question yet, such as "What caused the universe to come into existance?", arguing that its probably a certain way simply because of a feeling in your head seems like its a road to no where.

 

 

 

Now of course its worth mentioning that for any individual science is always beyond arms reach except in some very small cases - we cant be an expert in every field and we are unlikely to end up an expert in any field at all, we can have very little idea about whats really going on all we can do is choose to either believe or disbelieve in any one of a million so called experts in the various fields, and on what basis of judgement can we really in all honesty do that?

 

 

 

One way I tend to use is simply to not trust those who are rude to me, but even then theres problems, just cos someone is a nasty person, doesnt mean they havent got it right, or I could not trust the answers which dont make sense, but then I've no information about whether the universe it self makes sense.

 

 

 

The choice I've made is to try as much as I can to completely ignore everybody elses perceptions of the universe and just make up as interesting a story to my life as I go along, I live in a universe with a supreme being, one of love and compassion but not infinite power magic is real and ancient beings roam the earth in the guise of humans, feel free to join me in your own made up universe.

[Zierro]

The choice I've made is to try as much as I can to completely ignore everybody elses perceptions of the universe and just make up as interesting a story to my life as I go along, I live in a universe with a supreme being, one of love and compassion but not infinite power magic is real and ancient beings roam the earth in the guise of humans, feel free to join me in your own made up universe.

 

 

 

Careful now, you're being a target for empirical-hungry-atheists. 8-)

 

 

 

No, but on a serious note I'd have to agree with that. Some might consider that as living a delusion but if you ask me, that doesn't work against you. Nobody is perfect, and for all we know we might all be living in our delusional worlds. After all, "sure" is such a powerful word...

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe numbers as the one constant. I don't even think there are any constants. Numbers may be parallel to sentience, but what do I know.

 

 

 

By that do you mean they are opposite or similar? If you are saying they are opposite then I agree. Just imagine trying to 'code' someone's ego. It would be impossible because there are infinite possibilities.

[Shinjula]

I do tend to consider most of my life as a delusion, but as an artist what matters is, is the delusion beautiful, well crafted and a joy for those around me?

 

 

 

My life is a sculpture. And as someone once said "Is there in beauty, no truth?"

[l0rd]

Yeah we kinda changed topics....but its all good.

 

 

 

I like the idea of perceiving reality in different ways, because there really is no correct way. I wish I was able to alter my reality in some ways and the way I perceive things but that's mostly too embedded. Some people make their own realities unintentionally so different than reality that they're diagnosed - schizophrenia. :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Oh and shinjula, if Saruman was put into my shoes, rewound in time, I still don't think he would follow the same paths. You state it like its a fact but its really debatable and brings about the argument nature vs. nurture.

[Shinjula]

Yeah we kinda changed topics....but its all good.

 

 

 

I like the idea of perceiving reality in different ways, because there really is no correct way. I wish I was able to alter my reality in some ways and the way I perceive things but that's mostly too embedded. Some people make their own realities unintentionally so different than reality that they're diagnosed - schizophrenia. :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Oh and shinjula, if Saruman was put into my shoes, rewound in time, I still don't think he would follow the same paths. You state it like its a fact but its really debatable and brings about the argument nature vs. nurture.

 

No, I'm definitely not stating its a fact, theres obviously genetics to consider and a whole bunch of other stuff, just trying to illustrate what I meant about 'grown up'

[snowager286]

I've never seen any proof that God exists. I've also never seen any proof that God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

In my personal opinion I think neither one of them could ever prove that they are right (except possibly theists if God suddenly showed up.). Thus I think that one "logical" belief to be agnosticism. However, I feel that life would be truly crappy If I based everything I believed in off of logic, thus I am an theist.

 

 

 

(I switched the 'a' to 'an' to make sure that their were no confusions. I once got in an argument with a man because I told him I was 'a theist' but he thought I said 'atheist'. #-o )

[Zierro]

I once got in an argument with a man because I told him I was 'a theist' but he thought I said 'atheist'.

 

 

 

He argued with you over that?

[snowager286]

I once got in an argument with a man because I told him I was 'a theist' but he thought I said 'atheist'.

 

 

 

He argued with you over that?

 

 

 

yes.

 

 

 

edit: fine, I'll elaborate.

 

 

 

First of all It wasn't like some silly contrived misunderstanding that lasted for 20 minutes before either of us figured out that it was all just a misunderstanding. I was simply chatting with a man on a bus ride when he asked me if i believed in god or not. I responded, and told him that I was "a theist" he got somewhat upset about that and asked why I felt that way. I told him that their was no proof and he cut me off mid sentence and told me "You don't need proof, just faith!". At that I realized that he was also an theist which cleared up that mess.