Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

Well, who says this universe is all their is.

 

 

 

I'm no scientist but doesn't the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prove that the universe did not exist for an infinite amount of time? I remember reading something like that from Insane's posts.

 

 

 

The second law of thermodynamics simply proves that the universe hasnt been in a steady state for ever. The main focus with entropy is that things tend to spread out evenly over time in an isolated system. When we have universal gravitation to take into account its reasonable to assume the universe simply cycles between spreading out then being sucked back together by gravity.

 

 

 

As to the multiverses, its a very interesting theory but I dont believe there is any way currently to begin even testing the liklihood of it.

[RichieMcD]

 

 

 

The theory of a creator is rather rational, but the way in which most religions preach about is pretty irrational as well.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. If you ask me, religion is just a wall in the way of god. That's another issue though. :lol:

 

 

 

As you say, I couldn't agree more either.

 

 

 

If people didn't prioritize "pleasing" God, following what some ridiculously old (and extremely contradicitive, logic defying etc) book said and instead opened their mind and prioritized making the world better for everyone, we'd achieve a lot more.

 

 

 

If I could have my way, we'd all acknowledge a God but instead follow a secular Humanistic view, create a better world for those who inhabit it, and not worry about pleasing God. Just because there could quite possibly be a God out there, it doesn't mean we have to devote our time to pleasing it and forgetting others.

[Dizzle229]

 

 

 

The theory of a creator is rather rational, but the way in which most religions preach about is pretty irrational as well.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more. If you ask me, religion is just a wall in the way of god. That's another issue though. :lol:

 

 

 

As you say, I couldn't agree more either.

 

 

 

If people didn't prioritize "pleasing" God, following what some ridiculously old (and extremely contradicitive, logic defying etc) book said and instead opened their mind and prioritized making the world better for everyone, we'd achieve a lot more.

 

 

 

If I could have my way, we'd all acknowledge a God but instead follow a secular Humanistic view, create a better world for those who inhabit it, and not worry about pleasing God. Just because there could quite possibly be a God out there, it doesn't mean we have to devote our time to pleasing it and forgetting others.

 

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

 

 

And if there is a God, which I'm convinced there is, here's another thought: Is it sentient? Did it create life on purpose, or are we accidental? Is God Dr. Frankenstein, and we're the monster? (we've definitely screwed up big enough to be considered a monster)

[l0rd]

 

 

 

lol

[lobsta]

 

And for the last sentence, nobody on either "side" of this religion divide thinks it's better to admit that.

 

 

 

 

I think you will find that any scientist and hopefully any rational intelligent atheist will admit (or at least SHOULD) when they do not know how something occurs. Science after all is driven by ignorance and the quest of knowledge.

[lobsta]

 

 

 

How does this come as a surprise? After all, we're talking about god here, not human beings or laws of physics where there are definite boundaries. Let's face it, there are going to be answers that are completely irrational in the eyes of humans (how did the universe begin?). No matter how you want to explain it, it's still not going to make sense in a scientific point of view or a theological point of view. Like I said before, there has to be an answer and god is the only thing that fits in the puzzle, as he is the only one who can defy logic (and logic will definitely be defied in order to answer the question).

 

How could you possibly know that there has to be an illogical answer to the question? Science has demystified much over the centuries, at a great cost to most religions. Why do you suppose that there is not a scientific explanation for the universe? If God does exist, he must have been a scientist to fine tune the universe to the way it is. Why are you so quick to claim that 'God did it', (but we won't know how he did it), yet you are un-willing to admit that the universe was born through natural causes that we are as yet (or maybe forever) unable to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like we agree on something. :) God is more complex than the universe since he created it. However, going by Occam's Razor, the idea of a universe being god-free seems like a more complex idea (the fact that everything in life was an accident) than the idea that the universe has a creator (everything has purpose as opposed to having no purpose). A universe with purpose seems a lot more rational than a universe without any if you ask me.

 

A universe with purpose? What is purpose? Purpose is only a mechanism humans utilise to understand the world. It is an extremely vacuous argument to claim that just because you think that it seems more rational for their to be a purpose, there must have been a creator.

 

 

 

I accept God as an extremely small probability, mainly as I can not disprove his existence. I do not 'know God exists'.

[Zierro]

How could you possibly know that there has to be an illogical answer to the question? Science has demystified much over the centuries, at a great cost to most religions. Why do you suppose that there is not a scientific explanation for the universe? If God does exist, he must have been a scientist to fine tune the universe to the way it is. Why are you so quick to claim that 'God did it', (but we won't know how he did it), yet you are un-willing to admit that the universe was born through natural causes that we are as yet (or maybe forever) unable to understand?

 

 

 

Because going by science and logic, everything must have a cause. How does this explain this very moment of time in the present? There had to be a first cause, and that cause couldn't have something which caused that (or else we couldn't exist because something with an infinite amount of causes would not exist). Therefore it's contradictory to our current scientific and logical system.

 

 

 

A universe with purpose? What is purpose? Purpose is only a mechanism humans utilise to understand the world.

 

 

 

And...? Purpose is the word used here to describe god's intentions for creating us. Just because we thought of the principle of "purpose" does not mean god's intentions do not exist.

 

 

 

It is an extremely vacuous argument to claim that just because you think that it seems more rational for their to be a purpose, there must have been a creator.

 

 

 

If there is a purpose then there is a creator. Objective is another word for purpose. Why else would anyone create something if they weren't trying to achieve an objective? I guess you could argue that the creation was an accident and by this you'd be right, but I choose to be more optimistic than that.

 

 

 

Now I'd like to hear your justification on why you think that there is no purpose.

 

 

 

I accept God as an extremely small probability, mainly as I can not disprove his existence. I do not 'know God exists'.

 

 

 

Are you trying to say I know god exists? I do not. Definitely not. I do not even "know" if I am not just a brain in a jar because there is always that infinitesimally small chance that I got things all wrong - and this is just how things work. We "know" nothing, but I don't see this as a reason to stop using the word "know" altogether. The word is used because it's quite silly to take that 0.000000000001% chance of being wrong into account every single time you make a claim.

[Gmesh]

My only main problem with scientific theory is the big bang. Sorry but that sounds like a load of [cabbage] to me. -.-

 

 

 

I dont even wanna start with religion lol. :lol:

[mmmcannibalism]

Because going by science and logic, everything must have a cause. How does this explain this very moment of time in the present? There had to be a first cause, and that cause couldn't have something which caused that (or else we couldn't exist because something with an infinite amount of causes would not exist). Therefore it's contradictory to our current scientific and logical system.

 

 

 

why could something not exist with an infinite amount of causes? If we assume the cause for the big bang can be explained scientifically then an infinite amount of cycles of big bangs and big crunches makes perfect logical sense.

[Zierro]

why could something not exist with an infinite amount of causes? If we assume the cause for the big bang can be explained scientifically then an infinite amount of cycles of big bangs and big crunches makes perfect logical sense.

 

 

 

This article explains it nicely:

 

 

 

http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2005/11/02/infinite-cause-finite-effect/

 

 

 

I would love to summarize it for you but I would be leaving out many vital points.

[Obtaurian]

My only main problem with scientific theory is the big bang. Sorry but that sounds like a load of [cabbage] to me. -.-

 

 

 

I dont even wanna start with religion lol. :lol:

 

 

 

We can observe it and see that it is happening. Doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, it's still correct.

[Lenticular_J]

Actually, it's the best we could come up with. Well, some scientists wanted to say Chuck Norris just did it with a roundhouse kick, but apparently they think the evidence matches up more with a Big Bang.

[mmmcannibalism]

why could something not exist with an infinite amount of causes? If we assume the cause for the big bang can be explained scientifically then an infinite amount of cycles of big bangs and big crunches makes perfect logical sense.

 

 

 

This article explains it nicely:

 

 

 

http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2005/11/02/infinite-cause-finite-effect/

 

 

 

I would love to summarize it for you but I would be leaving out many vital points.

 

 

 

He is greatly flawed, I fail to see how the universe must have had a starting point if he says god could have existed forever. If we assume everything has a cause then I propose this universe was formed by the past universe collapsing and so on back to infinity.

[Obtaurian]

Actually, it's the best we could come up with. Well, some scientists wanted to say Chuck Norris just did it with a roundhouse kick, but apparently they think the evidence matches up more with a Big Bang.

 

 

 

Actually, we can observe that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else and that it's accelerating. If you reverse the process, everything was once condensed into a single point, thus, the big bang theory. It's not the best we can come up with, it's what we observe and can deduce logically.

[Lenticular_J]

And how do we not know of a massive Dyson Sphere beyond the plane of our furthest sight, pulling us with its gravity?

 

 

 

I just find it stupid when people get so smug about the Big Bang Theory. It has evidence enough to appease us now, sure. But sickness and economic troubles was evidence enough to appease people into killing witches and Jews.

[Alg]

I'd ask where that one point came from and how everything in the universe would have been condensed into it, only to explode outward and set in motion everything that we know today. If the laws of conservation of matter and energy are anything to go by, wouldn't everything in the current universe have been included (more counting heat loss?)?

 

Currently, that's where we can place a divine creator.

[Obtaurian]

And how do we not know of a massive Dyson Sphere beyond the plane of our furthest sight, pulling us with its gravity?

 

 

 

I just find it stupid when people get so smug about the Big Bang Theory. It has evidence enough to appease us now, sure. But sickness and economic troubles was evidence enough to appease people into killing witches and Jews.

 

 

 

What we don't know could fill many cosmic libraries, I'm sure. Maybe celery causes erectile dysfunction and Old Spice deodorant is the cure for AIDS. Maybe this, maybe that.

 

 

 

Your argument can apply to almost anything.

 

 

 

I'd ask where that one point came from and how everything in the universe would have been condensed into it, only to explode outward and set in motion everything that we know today. If the laws of conservation of matter and energy are anything to go by, wouldn't everything in the current universe have been included (more counting heat loss?)?

 

Currently, that's where we can place a divine creator.

 

 

 

Exactly. The Big Bang theory does not pretend to explain why or how, just that it did.

[Zierro]

He is greatly flawed, I fail to see how the universe must have had a starting point if he says god could have existed forever. If we assume everything has a cause then I propose this universe was formed by the past universe collapsing and so on back to infinity.

 

 

 

God's nature transcends that of space, time, cause and effect, etc. unlike the (observable) universe. He doesn't exist in the same plane we exist in - he is outside of the universe and outside what we know. So it's not necessary for god to be "caused" like the universe since he was the one who created the principle of space, time, cause and effect, etc. making these terms completely irrelevant to him. If he created them then surely he can exist without them.

 

 

 

We can't say the same about the universe unless we give it the same characteristics of god which still only serves to equalize the two dissenting beliefs. Plus it's not very scientific.

[mmmcannibalism]

He is greatly flawed, I fail to see how the universe must have had a starting point if he says god could have existed forever. If we assume everything has a cause then I propose this universe was formed by the past universe collapsing and so on back to infinity.

 

 

 

God's nature transcends that of space, time, cause and effect, etc. unlike the (observable) universe. He doesn't exist in the same plane we exist in - he is outside of the universe and outside what we know. So it's not necessary for god to be "caused" like the universe since he was the one who created the principle of space, time, cause and effect, etc. making these terms completely irrelevant to him. If he created them then surely he can exist without them.

 

 

 

We can't say the same about the universe unless we give it the same characteristics of god which still only serves to equalize the two dissenting beliefs. Plus it's not very scientific.

 

 

 

Which clearly creates a flaw with occam's razor

 

 

 

Accepting an infinitely regressing universe only requires excepting conservation of mass/energy and believing there is now(the big bang) or can be a model on how everything got here. Citing god as a more logical reason for the universe to be here requires violating the laws of conservation of mass/energy(which can be tested in a million ways); and saying there are alternate planes of existence with no supporting evidence. Belief in god is always going to be purely on faith because it is requires a leap of faith and acceptance of that which defies logic; thats not to say logic is the proper source for everything but if we are speaking solely on logic science wins over faith.

[Everkenezer]

 

 

 

God's nature transcends that of space, time, cause and effect, etc. unlike the (observable) universe. He doesn't exist in the same plane we exist in - he is outside of the universe and outside what we know. So it's not necessary for god to be "caused" like the universe since he was the one who created the principle of space, time, cause and effect, etc. making these terms completely irrelevant to him. If he created them then surely he can exist without them.

 

 

 

We can't say the same about the universe unless we give it the same characteristics of god which still only serves to equalize the two dissenting beliefs. Plus it's not very scientific.

 

 

 

 

 

I dont like this argument. You are saying that God exists outside our realm, but he created our realm, but doesnt have to live by the laws. The thing that bothers me the most is why would god (if he exists on a different plane) feel the need to create all these laws, if they do not apply to him.

[Zierro]

Which clearly creates a flaw with occam's razor

 

 

 

Accepting an infinitely regressing universe only requires excepting conservation of mass/energy and believing there is now(the big bang) or can be a model on how everything got here. Citing god as a more logical reason for the universe to be here requires violating the laws of conservation of mass/energy(which can be tested in a million ways); and saying there are alternate planes of existence with no supporting evidence. Belief in god is always going to be purely on faith because it is requires a leap of faith and acceptance of that which defies logic; thats not to say logic is the proper source for everything but if we are speaking solely on logic science wins over faith.

 

 

 

Perhaps if you only take the first cause argument into account, but when you look at things like the existence of sentience, our thought process, it's harder to believe that we are just an accident that had no creator. Especially when you look at DNA and how unique everything is.

 

 

 

And like I said, there are going to be logical and scientific contradictions either way so that's why it makes it easier (for me at least) to believe something outside these limitations.

 

 

 

I'd also like to note that when I speak of science and logic I am referring to the human's very limited perception. We can't hear what dogs can hear. We can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some animals don't see in color. Transparent objects appear to be opaque to insects. Why can't it work the same way with our logic? I feel it's important to acknowledge our limits.

 

 

 

I dont like this argument. You are saying that God exists outside our realm, but he created our realm, but doesnt have to live by the laws. The thing that bothers me the most is why would god (if he exists on a different plane) feel the need to create all these laws, if they do not apply to him.

 

 

 

If we didn't have any limits or boundaries then we would all be on par with god. I don't understand the "Why would god do this?" "Why would god do that?" objections. I believe in questioning things just as much as the next guy but it's on the same level as asking why hair makes people attractive. Even if god did exist, how are humans supposed to rationalize things on the same level as a divine being?

[mmmcannibalism]

Perhaps if you only take the first cause argument into account, but when you look at things like the existence of sentience, our thought process, it's harder to believe that we are just an accident that had no creator. Especially when you look at DNA and how unique everything is.

 

 

 

And like I said, there are going to be logical and scientific contradictions either way so that's why it makes it easier (for me at least) to believe something outside these limitations.

 

 

 

I'd also like to note that when I speak of science and logic I am referring to the human's very limited perception. We can't hear what dogs can hear. We can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some animals don't see in color. Transparent objects appear to be opaque to insects. Why can't it work the same way with our logic? I feel it's important to acknowledge our limits.

 

 

 

however, our logic system is being constantly adapted to suit what has been observed; until we have empirical reason to believe that things can exist outside observed universal laws it is less logical to believe in such things then to not believe in them.

[Zierro]

however, our logic system is being constantly adapted to suit what has been observed; until we have empirical reason to believe that things can exist outside observed universal laws it is less logical to believe in such things then to not believe in them.

 

 

 

I interpreted that two different ways:

 

 

 

1. You are either saying that we shouldn't believe things that are impossible for us to see until we see them, which is a contradiction.

 

 

 

2. Or you are saying it is the "less logical" choice because logic (in our terms) can only be defined as what we can possibly know. So yes, by the definition of logic, you would be correct. It is "less logical" to believe something outside the bounds of logic, but this isn't to say it cannot exist.

 

 

 

Heh, this is interesting. :P

[ldailey06]

 

I interpreted that two different ways:

 

 

 

1. You are either saying that we shouldn't believe things that are impossible for us to see until we see them, which is a contradiction.

 

 

 

2. Or you are saying it is the "less logical" choice because logic (in our terms) can only be defined as what we can possibly know. So yes, by the definition of logic, you would be correct. It is "less logical" to believe something outside the bounds of logic, but this isn't to say it cannot exist.

 

 

 

Heh, this is interesting. :P

 

 

 

1. If something leaves no effects for us to observe, then it is functionally nonexistent and there is no point in discussing it.

 

 

 

2. Until there is evidence to support the existence of something outside the bounds of logic, it is functionally nonexistent and there's no reason to blindly speculate that one exists.

[Zierro]

1. If something leaves no effects for us to observe, then it is functionally nonexistent and there is no point in discussing it.

 

 

 

2. Until there is evidence to support the existence of something outside the bounds of logic, it is functionally nonexistent and there's no reason to blindly speculate that one exists.

 

 

 

It is "nonexistent" in the realm of humans, but it still exists. Something does not have to be proven in order to exist. The earth has always been round, even when we thought it was flat. It did not suddenly change from flat to round one day.

 

 

 

Read this paragraph:

 

 

 

I'd also like to note that when I speak of science and logic I am referring to the human's very limited perception. We can't hear what dogs can hear. We can only see a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Some animals don't see in color. Transparent objects appear to be opaque to insects. Why can't it work the same way with our logic? I feel it's important to acknowledge our limits.

 

 

 

And is there a "point" to even posting in this thread? No, but it's thought invoking and that's why we do it.