Why do you believe in God? (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

So where did God come from?

 

[shader]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

 

[Ilov80s]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

So you're like saying the meteor is god and stuff? Whoa

It's so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.

And yet here we are.

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

 

[Politician Spock]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

The neighbor kid in Toy Story.

 

[shader]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

You come off as quite sure of your beliefs. Yet you are all over a thread directed to people that believe in God? Couldn't wait to run in here and make fun of other's beliefs, could you? I think you aren't nearly as secure in your beliefs as you come across.

And we both know biology is no closer to understanding how living organisms (which are most definitely NOT simple chains of molecules) arose than they were 50 years ago. Wild theories and stories on how life came about don't equal biology.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

So where did God come from?

Good question. .....this thread is really no different than the Josh Gordon thread.......It's all theory and speculation until we actually know.

 

[Ilov80s]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

You come off as quite sure of your beliefs. Yet you are all over a thread directed to people that believe in God? Couldn't wait to run in here and make fun of other's beliefs, could you? I think you aren't nearly as secure in your beliefs as you come across.

And we both know biology is no closer to understanding how living organisms (which are most definitely NOT simple chains of molecules) arose than they were 50 years ago. Wild theories and stories on how life came about don't equal biology.

You know if there's a thread about god, the same people are likely to show up and argue about why its BS. It will always happen. They can't help god made them that way, so we just have to deal with them.

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

You come off as quite sure of your beliefs. Yet you are all over a thread directed to people that believe in God? Couldn't wait to run in here and make fun of other's beliefs, could you? I think you aren't nearly as secure in your beliefs as you come across.

And we both know biology is no closer to understanding how living organisms (which are most definitely NOT simple chains of molecules) arose than they were 50 years ago. Wild theories and stories on how life came about don't equal biology.

I am quite secure. I didn't rush in at all. In fact I even provided one of my favorite Bible verses. But people see what they want. The person I responded to even has believers not particularly happy. And yes the right chain of molecules transferred from elsewhere could have provided the base material to start building the basic foundations of life here. That isn't at all in doubt. The question is did it happen that way, not could it. Recent findings in meteorites suggest it could have.

 

[joffer]

I wasn't raised in any religion but was raised that there is a God, creator of all, and the basic commandments. My family never aligned themselves with a religion but they do take the part of being good in God's eyes from them.

I sometimes watch Jimmy Swaggart just in shock about how he knocks down other religions including catholicism, protestants, methodests, etc other than his belief with his expositors bible. I can't believe how much money they make off of the you are giving to God when you give to that family center. Huh? Ok, it's money to pay your bills AND line your pockets which is lives VERY nicely from. It's a good channel for me to get a chuckle out of.

So why not believe in God if there is a doubt? It gives you faith and hope. You don't need to go to a building to be near Him. You don't need to read the bible to get that and all it's bazillion stories of who did what and such, but for those who are in doubt, why not err on this side. Makes life easier. You can't turn everything into a science experiment.

Because I care whether my beliefs are true, and not just whether they make me feel good.That aside, an omnipotent being that can read my thoughts and cares who I have sex with does NOT make me feel good.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

You come off as quite sure of your beliefs. Yet you are all over a thread directed to people that believe in God? Couldn't wait to run in here and make fun of other's beliefs, could you? I think you aren't nearly as secure in your beliefs as you come across.

And we both know biology is no closer to understanding how living organisms (which are most definitely NOT simple chains of molecules) arose than they were 50 years ago. Wild theories and stories on how life came about don't equal biology.

I am quite secure. I didn't rush in at all. In fact I even provided one of my favorite Bible verses. But people see what they want. The person I responded to even has believers not particularly happy. And yes the right chain of molecules transferred from elsewhere could have provided the base material to start building the basic foundations of life here. That isn't at all in doubt. The question is did it happen that way, not could it. Recent findings in meteorites suggest it could have.

That is still the question....just like is it possible that an omnipotent presence started that whole process...We don't know so how can we be sure one way or the other? It's also ok that we all don't agree on this process and that neither is wrong or right...Again we don't know.

 

[NCCommish]

We are an insignificant species on an insignificant planet on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy. Our hubris demands we be more than that. The universe doesn't care.

NCCommish: your response is precisely why I DO believe in a Creator. Do I believe in a white haired, white skinned grandpa sitting up in some cloud...watching all our lives intently, giving us a little assist or nudge when we need it, or hearing our prayers? No. But I do believe in panspermia. That Earth was "seeded" with life. Could have been by dumb-luck, could have been by design (I believe the latter). And that other life has given our planet, our species, a "nudge" from time to time. And probably within the next few hundred years, we'll be doing the same thing. Seeding some other planet/moon, either in our own solar system or another solar system, with life. "Creating" life on said worlds. The question is: will be we "God" to that world? Will people refer to "pillars of fire from the sky" or "angels" to describe what they were seeing...when our technology (thousands of years from now) will be thousands of years ahead of their own?

I'll agree with you. Humans aren't unique/special in the universe (multiverse?). Just one of probably millions/billions of intelligent species out there. Earth isn't unique either, in the big scheme of things. Nor is the Milky Way. But that leads me to suspect that the seeds of life found their way to Earth and evolved from other forms of life, not originating from Earth. And if life got here from "parts unknown," then to me, that introduces at least the potential for said seeds of life to be put here on purpose. Via a "Creator." Whether you call that Creator "God" or "Bob" or "Nyuck-Nyuck" doesn't much matter to me.

I get what you are saying but the reality is no creator needed. We know how life could have ended up here. Heck it could have come from Mars. But it doesn't take a conscious hand to do it. It just takes a meteor strike that transfers a simple chain of molecules. That's it. Introducing a maker doesn't make the process less complicated it complicates it infinitely, especially if we ascribe magical powers to that maker as we do with God.

preposterous

Not at all.

Yes biology and physics are fun.

You come off as quite sure of your beliefs. Yet you are all over a thread directed to people that believe in God? Couldn't wait to run in here and make fun of other's beliefs, could you? I think you aren't nearly as secure in your beliefs as you come across.

And we both know biology is no closer to understanding how living organisms (which are most definitely NOT simple chains of molecules) arose than they were 50 years ago. Wild theories and stories on how life came about don't equal biology.

I am quite secure. I didn't rush in at all. In fact I even provided one of my favorite Bible verses. But people see what they want. The person I responded to even has believers not particularly happy. And yes the right chain of molecules transferred from elsewhere could have provided the base material to start building the basic foundations of life here. That isn't at all in doubt. The question is did it happen that way, not could it. Recent findings in meteorites suggest it could have.

That is still the question....just like is it possible that an omnipotent presence started that whole process...We don't know so how can we be sure one way or the other? It's also ok that we all don't agree on this process and that neither is wrong or right...Again we don't know.

Well as I said earlier if you are going with God started the whole ball rolling no one can really say no. Well they can but in the end we don't know what happened to precipitate the expansion. But it makes everything way, way more complex when you go with a supernatural explanation and that isn't usually a good thing.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So NC Commish you go on searching for the answer while you are alive and the others will worry about finding the answer once they take the dirt nap. Either way we still may never know.

 

[NCCommish]

So NC Commish you go on searching for the answer while you are alive and the others will worry about finding the answer once they take the dirt nap. Either way we still may never know.

Very true

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

So where did God come from?

Even a non-believer should know how believers would answer this question. Something with the title The Creator doesn't "come" from somewhere. He/It creates the somewhere.

 

[NCCommish]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

So where did God come from?

Even a non-believer should know how believers would answer this question. Something with the title The Creator doesn't "come" from somewhere. He/It creates the somewhere.

If everything must have a beginning that applies to God as well. If you can't allow for there being a singularity whose origins are unclear what mental gymnastics do you have to do to allow for a supernatural being with no origin?

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Because to me the big bang theory is harder to believe than portions of the biblical theory....So who put all the components in place and lit the fuse?

So where did God come from?

Even a non-believer should know how believers would answer this question. Something with the title The Creator doesn't "come" from somewhere. He/It creates the somewhere.

If everything must have a beginning that applies to God as well. If you can't allow for there being a singularity whose origins are unclear what mental gymnastics do you have to do to allow for a supernatural being with no origin?

The flaw here is that you're combining God with all other supernatural beings, things, events. They are two different things.

 

[joffer]

So NC Commish you go on searching for the answer while you are alive and the others will worry about finding the answer once they take the dirt nap. Either way we still may never know.

if next month a scientist creates a self-replicating organic molecule in the laboratory using ingredients we think were available on the prebiotic earth, and its repeatable, would that change your beliefs?

 

[josefrees]

God can you guys stop with the huge block quoting makes this page nearly unreadable.

special pleading is giving exception without justification. I justified the exception therefore it is not special pleading. It is that simple. It is merely a difference in subjective rationality. Some have no trouble accepting contradiction like causation and infinite causation while others use simple logical constructs to avoid that contradiction.

As for complication or complexity somehow being bad, it is nonsense. Our understanding continually gets more complicated and complex and it is definitely more true than ever. It is still absolutely false but it is closer. Remember, if you live long enough you will look back on your understanding of the world today in pure scorn.

 

[glumpy]

If everything must have a beginning that applies to God as well. If you can't allow for there being a singularity whose origins are unclear what mental gymnastics do you have to do to allow for a supernatural being with no origin?

Maybe we should also be asking about the concept of time. Beginnings? We really are limited by how we perceive our realities.

 

[tonydead]

Sorry, but I'm not following what you're getting at. Are you saying that my personal experiences (which you did not observe and have not experienced yourself) leading me to a particular belief is lowering the bar of the definition of evidence? I can understand how that's a non-answer to you, but are you also saying it should be a non-answer to me and that I shouldn't accept it as evidence?

You described your personal experiences as feelings. Feelings are not any sort of evidence at all, they are on par with faith. That's why scientist are very careful to leave "feelings" and desired outcomes at the door.

 

[tonydead]

The existence of a creator is logical concept forwarded by Aristotle and co-opted by Aquinas. In a causal system (which, despite probabilistic modifiers, still exists), for there to be any rationality, you cannot have infinite causation. You cannot say that causality exists and then say that an event was caused by infinitely many causes and not maintain a contradictory stance. Therefore, God exists as a logical construct at the very least simply to allow a causal system to begin.

Most socalled atheists are not actually atheists. An atheist does not make a negative or positive claim towards God. An atheist takes no stance because they have taken themselves out of the conversation. Anyone saying that God does not exist is an antitheist and is in fact relying on the same proof as a theist but with the addition of the prior mentioned contradiction. The stance that god does not exist requires the same method of faith as it does to posit that god does exist. Off course, nearly every antitheist you meet will call themselves an atheist in order to have their cake (have a stance) and eat it too (have the absence of a stance).

Let me finally mention the folly of attributing truth giving qualities to science. It offers no objective truth. It offers temporal truthlikeness. What we know today will be ridiculed tomorrow the same way we ridicule yesterday. To say otherwise represents a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and history. Climbing an endless ladder of causation and then acting like you have gotten any closer to the top is pure and complete irrationality. Science's contributions end at application. BTW, neither the Big Bang nor the multiverse theory nor any theory that ever arises will ever prove the nonexistence of god. You could leave this dimension and all it does is expand the scope of the creators power.

To recap:

God has to exist in our current understanding of how the world works

For causality to be rational it requires something greater than nature

Science is a tool for application and using it as a tool of truth is the equivalent of believing that a balance of the four humors is what keeps us healthy, that when someone gets sick bleeding them makes them better, and that somehow the earth goes around the sun while at the same time the sun goes around the earth.

Not true, an atheist does takes a stance because of the potential harm in believing the supernatural where there is not logical reason for believing in the supernatural.

1- Flying planes into buildings

2- Unnecessary war and killing

3- Brainwashing children

4- The list goes on and on but you get the point

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So NC Commish you go on searching for the answer while you are alive and the others will worry about finding the answer once they take the dirt nap. Either way we still may never know.

if next month a scientist creates a self-replicating organic molecule in the laboratory using ingredients we think were available on the prebiotic earth, and its repeatable, would that change your beliefs?

I don't think so because I can't get past wondering where all those components for the Big Bang Theory came from and why they existed. Its just hard for me to believe there is not a purpose for the Universe.

 

[joffer]

So NC Commish you go on searching for the answer while you are alive and the others will worry about finding the answer once they take the dirt nap. Either way we still may never know.

if next month a scientist creates a self-replicating organic molecule in the laboratory using ingredients we think were available on the prebiotic earth, and its repeatable, would that change your beliefs?

I don't think so because I can't get past wondering where all those components for the Big Bang Theory came from and why they existed. Its just hard for me to believe there is not a purpose for the Universe.

What components?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

 

[tonydead]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

I giant unicorn jumped up and clicked its heels. Bang!

 

[joffer]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

 

[cstu]

I wasn't raised in any religion but was raised that there is a God, creator of all, and the basic commandments. My family never aligned themselves with a religion but they do take the part of being good in God's eyes from them.

I sometimes watch Jimmy Swaggart just in shock about how he knocks down other religions including catholicism, protestants, methodests, etc other than his belief with his expositors bible. I can't believe how much money they make off of the you are giving to God when you give to that family center. Huh? Ok, it's money to pay your bills AND line your pockets which is lives VERY nicely from. It's a good channel for me to get a chuckle out of.

So why not believe in God if there is a doubt? It gives you faith and hope. You don't need to go to a building to be near Him. You don't need to read the bible to get that and all it's bazillion stories of who did what and such, but for those who are in doubt, why not err on this side. Makes life easier. You can't turn everything into a science experiment.

Because I care whether my beliefs are true, and not just whether they make me feel good.That aside, an omnipotent being that can read my thoughts and cares who I have sex with does NOT make me feel good.

A little too 'Every Breath You Take' for my taste.

 

[cstu]

The existence of a creator is logical concept forwarded by Aristotle and co-opted by Aquinas. In a causal system (which, despite probabilistic modifiers, still exists), for there to be any rationality, you cannot have infinite causation. You cannot say that causality exists and then say that an event was caused by infinitely many causes and not maintain a contradictory stance. Therefore, God exists as a logical construct at the very least simply to allow a causal system to begin.

Most socalled atheists are not actually atheists. An atheist does not make a negative or positive claim towards God. An atheist takes no stance because they have taken themselves out of the conversation. Anyone saying that God does not exist is an antitheist and is in fact relying on the same proof as a theist but with the addition of the prior mentioned contradiction. The stance that god does not exist requires the same method of faith as it does to posit that god does exist. Off course, nearly every antitheist you meet will call themselves an atheist in order to have their cake (have a stance) and eat it too (have the absence of a stance).

Let me finally mention the folly of attributing truth giving qualities to science. It offers no objective truth. It offers temporal truthlikeness. What we know today will be ridiculed tomorrow the same way we ridicule yesterday. To say otherwise represents a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method and history. Climbing an endless ladder of causation and then acting like you have gotten any closer to the top is pure and complete irrationality. Science's contributions end at application. BTW, neither the Big Bang nor the multiverse theory nor any theory that ever arises will ever prove the nonexistence of god. You could leave this dimension and all it does is expand the scope of the creators power.

To recap:

God has to exist in our current understanding of how the world works

For causality to be rational it requires something greater than nature

Science is a tool for application and using it as a tool of truth is the equivalent of believing that a balance of the four humors is what keeps us healthy, that when someone gets sick bleeding them makes them better, and that somehow the earth goes around the sun while at the same time the sun goes around the earth.

This is honestly one of the biggest loads of nonsense I've ever read on this board.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That aside, an omnipotent being that can read my thoughts and cares who I have sex with does NOT make me feel good.

A little too 'Every Breath You Take' for my taste.

Thanks for acknowledging this. Too often, atheists just write off religion as a form of wish-fulfillment while pretending that they're bravely bracing themselves against the chill wind of reality. It's nice to see people on the "other side" acknowledge that atheism potentially suffers from the same criticism.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"

Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

 

[matuski]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

You can't understand a molecule, but an invisible guy in the sky just sounds right with you?

 

[matuski]

Some have no trouble accepting contradiction like causation and infinite causation while others use simple logical constructs to avoid that contradiction.

Or we just say we don't know.

 

[Jayrok]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"

Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

The article you posted includes footnotes from books written in 1968 and 1970 from a guy named (by the article) Steven Hawking. Who is Steven Hawking? Stephen Hawking, at one time, acknowledged the possibility of God at the origin of the universe.. as it wasn't known how it all started. He has since written newer books where he insists the beginning of the universe did not need a divine creator to come into existence. It's easy to quote someone's stance in the 60s and 70s but maybe we should include the person's latest theories as well, to be fair.

The experts didn't know what "it" was, but now seem to have updated theories on origins. This is what discovery is all about.

 

[matuski]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"

Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

You are using a site run by ALLABOUTGOD.com to assert and summarize science's understanding of a topic?

 

[joffer]

Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

It wasn't molecules or gases

 

[Bronx Bomber]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

You are using a site run by ALLABOUTGOD.com to assert and summarize science's understanding of a topic?

Seriously? Disregard then. It was the first thing not TV show related to pop up on google. My bad, WTH would this site be run by that site SMH. And besides this post doesn't attempt to summarize or assert anything other than to help of Ditka above. Edit: my link shows this at the bottom?

Science Home | About Us | Support Us | FAQ | Sitemap

Copyright © 2002 - 2014 AllAboutScience.org, All Rights Reserved.

 

[McGarnicle]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Not sure if this was a response to my post. If so I again apologize. It was by no means an attempt to say anything about science. Joffer laughed at Ditka for not knowing what the "it" was in the Big Bang. I was browsing the Internet, came across that and said "see nobody really knows what the "it" was, I should post this to defend Ditka" it was unsolisitated and I'm sure he can defend himself.

I swear I'm not the type to sway anyone's opinions or beliefs. I find most things in life interesting and love hearing all kinds of thought and opinions.

 

[timschochet]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Belief in God is based on faith, but why would it be "fundamentally dishonest"? I don't get that. Most religious people I know are quite honest about it.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

The molecules....gases...i don't know I'm not a scientist. The stuff that set off the big bang. Where did it come from and why would it exist?

i might suggest learning what "it" is before concluding that "it" could only have a supernatural cause. you don't need to be a scientist.

"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. - See more at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/#sthash.C1X4mvnr.dpuf"

Sounds like the experts don't even know what "it" was

Thank you, exactly. The concept that we are in a snow globe on a shelf of some higher being is still in play just as much as the Big Bang Theory.

 

[McGarnicle]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Not sure if this was a response to my post. If so I again apologize. It was by no means an attempt to say anything about science. Joffer laughed at Ditka for not knowing what the "it" was in the Big Bang. I was browsing the Internet, came across that and said "see nobody really knows what the "it" was, I should post this to defend Ditka" it was unsolisitated and I'm sure he can defend himself.

I swear I'm not the type to sway anyone's opinions or beliefs. I find most things in life interesting and love hearing all kinds of thought and opinions.

It was more a response to the general flow the discussion has taken. I find it striking that science is very transparent about what they know to be fact and what is merely a theory, as opposed to how religion presents their laws and rules.

 

[McGarnicle]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Belief in God is based on faith, but why would it be "fundamentally dishonest"? I don't get that. Most religious people I know are quite honest about it.

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true. I'm contrasting that with science, which says, we know the tree was this old because of the rings, and the dinosaur bone is this old because of carbon dating, but on any number of matters, sorry, all we have are theories, but we're not going to lie and say our theories are unequivocal truths.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

Not sure if this was a response to my post. If so I again apologize. It was by no means an attempt to say anything about science. Joffer laughed at Ditka for not knowing what the "it" was in the Big Bang. I was browsing the Internet, came across that and said "see nobody really knows what the "it" was, I should post this to defend Ditka" it was unsolisitated and I'm sure he can defend himself.

I swear I'm not the type to sway anyone's opinions or beliefs. I find most things in life interesting and love hearing all kinds of thought and opinions.

It was more a response to the general flow the discussion has taken. I find it striking that science is very transparent about what they know to be fact and what is merely a theory, as opposed to how religion presents their laws and rules.

You shouldn't be. They're talking about different things. Science doesn't pretend to have anything in particular to say about how I should live my life and how I should treat others, and religion shouldn't have anything to say about how the laws of the physical universe. In other words, your post is a pretty good response to young earth creationists, but that's about it.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion.

The difference though is that science is based on facts that can be verified through rigorous testing. And when something is just a theory, it is stated as such. A scientist is quick to admit that he doesn't have all the answers.

Religion says things unequivocally, because some book written by men says so, or God supposedly spoke to some prophet centuries ago. It's fundamentally dishonest. I'd rather have 75% of the picture and know it's accurate, than blindly follow something that says we have 100% of the picture but it's impossible to validate.

I don't give two sh**s about what religion says....And I am no scientist. But for me, without a purpose what would be the point of all of this... What I will say is as of right now the religious beginning (genesis) (not the 6,000 year old) is just as believable as the science theory, and until proven otherwise(which will never happen in any of our lifetimes) the big bang guys are grasping at just as many straws as the religious guys.

 

[timschochet]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

 

[McGarnicle]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

It's dishonest to preach to large groups of people that this is how the universe functions, and this is what God said, and this is how you should live your life, when you have no idea if any of it is true.

"This is how the universe functions" occupies an entirely different category of knowledge than "this is how you should live your life." You're committing Hume's is/ought fallacy.

How is that relevant to my point though? I'm saying religion is preaching their stories on any number of topics, and their stories are not based on anything real or provable. They will say the earth is 6,000 years old, or if you don't accept Jesus you'll go to hell, or whatever the case may be...my point is that most of what they preach is fundamentally dishonest in that it is presented as unequivocal fact.

What religions are you referring to here. I've not been to church in a while but usually they just use the stories/accounts from the Bible as metaphors of how to have a happier life in today's age. I've never seen or heard any fire and brimstone type lecture or discount/discredit science in any way. And I've always attended straight up Catholic mass. Is this the type of stuff from those crazy TV preachers or something?

 

[McGarnicle]

I agree it is dishonest to preach that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that evolution is a lie, etc. But it's certainly not dishonest to preach that God created the universe, or that the Gospels are true, etc. That doesn't contradict science.

It's dishonest to say God created the universe, and the Gospels are true, and the only way to Heaven is by accepting Jesus, and you need to give us a percentage of your monthly income. Because that's usually the progression. They start by giving you their version of history, then how you should live your life, then they keep you in their pews mostly through guilt and by coercing you to give them money so you feel invested in it.