Do YOU believe in God?

[havesometea1]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

Did you grow up in a christian family?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter :P that arguement is a fallacy, 'ad ignorantium'.

 

 

 

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it is true.

 

 

 

No, but it makes it highly suspect...especially when there is no basis for proving in on empirical evidence.

[lucasesco]

There is no proof that religion isn't real.

Did you grow up in a christian family?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter :P that arguement is a fallacy, 'ad ignorantium'.

 

 

 

Just because something cannot be disproven does not mean it is true.

 

 

 

No, but it makes it highly suspect...especially when there is no basis for proving in on empirical evidence.

 

 

 

wow you're too smart for me =D> :-k i'll buy your brain for my red mask

[bull912000]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

[Godzira]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

[insane]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

 

 

 

1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait.

 

2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human.

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe.

 

 

 

See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

[look_its_rob]

Ok, I think this is going to confuse the hell out of people, but i will try to explain it the best I can.

 

People say that god was always there, but how is that possible? In order to get to the present, you must have a starting point in time. If there is no starting point, you can always go back another year and hense, would never get to the present date. Think of it like a timeline, what number would you start with? You can't start with any number because you would continuasly have to add more. Any one understand?

 

Does this mean that god had a god that created him? And that god had a god and so forth?

 

I am not saying that I do not believe in a god, I believe something must have exsisted to create life.

 

Can any strong believe in God please explain the first part for me?

[look_its_rob]

PS i will check tomorrow for responses

[lucasesco]

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

 

 

 

noobi! look above you if you dont see him u r teh blind

[Username012]

Ok, I think this is going to confuse the hell out of people, but i will try to explain it the best I can.

 

People say that god was always there, but how is that possible? In order to get to the present, you must have a starting point in time. If there is no starting point, you can always go back another year and hense, would never get to the present date. Think of it like a timeline, what number would you start with? You can't start with any number because you would continuasly have to add more. Any one understand?

 

Does this mean that god had a god that created him? And that god had a god and so forth?

 

I am not saying that I do not believe in a god, I believe something must have exsisted to create life.

 

Can any strong believe in God please explain the first part for me?

 

 

 

God is so powerful and infinite that he is above time. God created time. Time doesn't even exist, it's just what God made so we're less confused.

 

 

 

By the way, want to know what year God became existant, and what year he will become non-existant? The answer is: ∞. Infinity. Never-ending. Unexplainable. GOD.

[Make7upu101]

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

 

 

 

noobi! look above you if you dont see him u r teh blind

 

 

 

Seriously, he/shes that white puffy thing. What else could it be?

[Godzira]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

 

 

 

1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait.

 

2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human.

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe.

 

 

 

See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

 

 

 

So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not?

[insane]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

 

 

 

1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait.

 

2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human.

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe.

 

 

 

See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

 

 

 

So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not?

 

 

 

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

[Godzira]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

 

 

 

1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait.

 

2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human.

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe.

 

 

 

See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

 

 

 

So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not?

 

 

 

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Interesting really, you know that the thermodynamics argument doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hold water so you state that you still find god more believable even if I show the thermodynamics argument to be bunk.

 

 

 

So basically you have no logical reason to believe in god other than the fact that you grew up hearing about him and he gives you a warm fuzzy.

 

 

 

Ok thanks for playing our game.

[bull912000]

Hey, it's kinda hard for something to make you warm and fuzzy and not even exist.

[danielhong]

i have a picture that God's real lemme go find it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

here it is NASA took this pic it was found i the 2nd galaxy Heaven is in the 3rd Galaxy

[issy2]

I don't believe in God but I have respect to people that do believe in Him.

 

People that believe in God get strenght out of their religion and I think that's a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

The most intelligent comment on this thread, not that it's for me to judge:)

 

 

 

I totally agree.

[Godzira]

Hey, it's kinda hard for something to make you warm and fuzzy and not even exist.

 

 

 

World peace makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

[Godzira]

I don't believe in God but I have respect to people that do believe in Him.

 

People that believe in God get strenght out of their religion and I think that's a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

The most intelligent comment on this thread, not that it's for me to judge:)

 

 

 

I totally agree.

 

 

 

It would be an intelligent comment. Unfortunately, religion is not as tolerant of others. As a whole religion has a bloody history or oppression and recruitment. I respect that people get strength from religion, but I strongly disagree with what is done with that strength.

[insane]

Interesting really, you know that the thermodynamics argument doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hold water

 

 

 

I do not know this. Please show me how it doesn't hold water. I just said *if* it doesn't, then it won't affect my belief much. However, it hasn't been shown to be a bad argument... yet.

 

 

 

so you state that you still find god more believable even if I show the thermodynamics argument to be bunk.

 

 

 

I did, and I provided logical reasoning behind it. At least, reasoning that you did not logically refute. And you also did not show my argument to be "bunk".

 

 

 

 

 

So basically you have no logical reason to believe in god

 

 

 

Oh, I just provided logical reasoning. At least, too logical for you to refute at least. Just calling my arguments garbage doesn't make them so. That, is what is illogical here.

 

 

 

 

 

other than the fact that you grew up hearing about him and he gives you a warm fuzzy.

 

 

 

So basically, you don't believe in God because you grew up hearing nothing about him and it makes you afraid that if He exists you might have to change your lifestyle.

 

 

 

I don't believe this, I just thought I'd stoop to your level of reasoning to show you how it feels to read ridiculous made up comments about your life

 

 

 

 

Ok thanks for playing our game.

 

 

 

The only game being played here is you throwing sticks at strawmen.

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with what is done with that strength.

 

 

 

It's not what religion has done, it's religious people. I don't see how religious people can make religion look bad. I've used this example a trillion times, but people don't seem to catch on: You don't blame aerodynamics (the principle) if an airplane (the application), crashes.

 

 

 

Therefore, do not blame religion (the principle), if a religious person does something stupid (the application).

[Godzira]

Interesting really, you know that the thermodynamics argument doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t hold water

 

 

 

I do not know this. Please show me how it doesn't hold water. I just said *if* it doesn't, then it won't affect my belief much. However, it hasn't been shown to be a bad argument... yet.

 

 

 

so you state that you still find god more believable even if I show the thermodynamics argument to be bunk.

 

 

 

I did, and I provided logical reasoning behind it. At least, reasoning that you did not logically refute. And you also did not show my argument to be "bunk".

 

 

 

 

 

So basically you have no logical reason to believe in god

 

 

 

Oh, I just provided logical reasoning. At least, too logical for you to refute at least. Just calling my arguments garbage doesn't make them so. That, is what is illogical here.

 

 

 

 

 

other than the fact that you grew up hearing about him and he gives you a warm fuzzy.

 

 

 

So basically, you don't believe in God because you grew up hearing nothing about him and it makes you afraid that if He exists you might have to change your lifestyle.

 

 

 

I don't believe this, I just thought I'd stoop to your level of reasoning to show you how it feels to read ridiculous made up comments about your life

 

 

 

 

Ok thanks for playing our game.

 

 

 

The only game being played here is you throwing sticks at strawmen.

 

 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with what is done with that strength.

 

 

 

It's not what religion has done, it's religious people. I don't see how religious people can make religion look bad. I've used this example a trillion times, but people don't seem to catch on: You don't blame aerodynamics (the principle) if an airplane (the application), crashes.

 

 

 

Therefore, do not blame religion (the principle), if a religious person does something stupid (the application).

 

 

 

The creationist argument using the 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on a lack of scientific understanding and as been refuted countless times by myself and others on other debate forums, so I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t feel like going into it in depth again on this forum. If it bothers you too much IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll hunt down a link to one of my other threads. Basically, the universe is not a closed system, if it were a closed system it would make my job of explanation easier as it would collapse upon itself thus recycling the energy it contains. This would be an easy explanation to your question, but it would be an incorrect one. Since I am concerned with truthful answers and not easy ones I will not try to say that it is a closed system.

 

 

 

As an open system, our universe received energy from extra dimensional reactions. We do not have the ability to measure these dimensions with current technology but we can deduce their existence by the reaction that they leave behind.

 

 

 

This brings us to the next problem that you sighted, if there are other universes, where did they come from? The answer, they just are. Why is this so hard for creationist to accept? You can believe that god has always existed but not that universes have? They exist because they do, if they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t nothing would exist.

 

 

 

You said ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅI don't believe this, I just thought I'd stoop to your level of reasoning to show you how it feels to read ridiculous made up comments about your lifeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[havesometea1]

Well, I find it hard that two random particals that somehow created themselves made this universe. There must have been some kind of force that controles reality, so I beleive that God is it.

 

 

 

Oh, and I ment to say there is no proof that God isnt real.

 

 

 

So it's more believable to you that there is an invisable man living in the sky that created everything? :roll:

 

 

 

1. God isn't physical, therefore "invisible" is a redundant trait.

 

2. God isn't a man. He may be perceived as male, but he's definitely not human.

 

3. He's not living in the sky, give me a break. :| Let's be reasonable now.

 

4. It makes more sense to me that an uncaused being created the things required for the universe, rather than they just "always existed". It makes more sense that a supreme being could be timeless rather than some stupid inanimate particles that just randomly exploded into a universe.

 

 

 

See? I can use loaded terms to sound smart too!

 

 

 

So an "uncaused" being makes sense but an "uncaused" universe does not?

 

 

 

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Maybe you should read this....

 

 

 

http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html

 

 

 

It may clear up your misconceptions about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[insane]

Thank you for taking time to actually explain yourself (in regards to thermodynamics) :)

 

 

 

The answer, they [other universes] just are. Why is this so hard for creationist to accept? You can believe that god has always existed but not that universes have? They exist because they do, if they didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t nothing would exist.

 

 

 

They just are. Unmeasured, unsighted, undetected universe just exist providing unmeasureable extra dimensional reactions. They just are because they are.

 

 

 

This is where our debate comes to a close, I think. You think that the above makes more sense than God (who by definition is uncaused). And I think that God makes alot more sense than universes that "just are". There's no way around it - we're just going to clash in opinion, I think an animate deity makes more sense than inanimate electrons/protons/neutrons as far as "just being" is concerned. You think opposite.

 

 

 

It might seem a little convenient to you that God is by definition uncaused, but I think you will find that many things that are convenient turn out to be true :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is religion itself, organized religion that did, and does these things. I have no problem with individuals that choose to believe is some divine being, but when they gather in groups they seem to become disproportionably dangerous.

 

 

 

I guess we're just clashing on definitions. You believe the church itself to be organized religion, whereas I believe the principles the religion is based on are/is, the religion. I believe the church to be an application of religion. Simple definition mix-up.

[yonman14]

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Wow, this is quite an impressive argument. After taking a year of physics and understanding entropy, I was bothered by it. But wow, I can't believe I couldn't understand that entropy could in fact be a proof of God's existence. Kudos to you man, this is an mazing theory. You oughta consider publishing some kind of argument based on this. Yeah...I'm really impressed.

 

 

 

P.S. After reading over my post I realized it could sound slightly sarcastic, it isn't...I really am amazed by insane's reasoning.

[insane]

Because matter in a closed system eventually decomposes into nothing (2nd law of thermodynamics). If the matter for the Big Bang always existed, then an infinite amount of time has to have passed before the Big Bang - surely enough time for it to decompose into nothing!

 

 

 

Of course, an answer to this could be that the universe is not a closed system. Then, my response would be, what is outside of it that is feeding it energy? There are only two answers to this:

 

 

 

1.) Another universe, which then springs a vicious cycle about the matter in that universe, or

 

 

 

2.) God is feeding the universe energy.

 

 

 

 

 

Either way, I end up with a supreme being. And even if my argument with the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold up, I still think it's more reasonable to believe a deity being timeless and eternal as opposed to some particles.

 

 

 

Wow, this is quite an impressive argument. After taking a year of physics and understanding entropy, I was bothered by it. But wow, I can't believe I couldn't understand that entropy could in fact be a proof of God's existence. Kudos to you man, this is an mazing theory. You oughta consider publishing some kind of argument based on this. Yeah...I'm really impressed.

 

 

 

P.S. After reading over my post I realized it could sound slightly sarcastic, it isn't...I really am amazed by insane's reasoning.

 

 

 

Science really isn't my strong spot, so I wouldn't consider that my best reasoning, but, thanks anyways I guess :P

[Godzira]

The flaw in this theory is that it assumes that this is the first and only big bang, which it likely isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. We can make a reasonable estimate from universal red shifts that the age of this particular incarnation of the universe is indeed measurable although the amount of time involved is staggering to most people.