[Poll] Do you believe in God?

[Rohan]

Yes, I believe.

 

[Edogawa]

I was making an analogy of your reasoning of why God should exist, and I compared your logic to various religious beliefs that were debunked but had the same rationale as you do now.

Those religious examples you brought up worship multiple Gods, whereas I believe in only one true God, so the distinction is pretty clear.

Well, we don't know where they came from, but saying it came from "God" is a baseless assumption. You have no evidence for it, yet you're saying it's God because in your mind it can't be anything else. This goes back to my analogy. People used to think that the sun couldn't be anything else but a God, but eventually they discovered that the Sun was actually just a sphere of hot plasma.

What science does is prove that the universe that we know of doesn't need God as a factor to explain how it works. The more we learn, the less of "God" is needed to explain things and it's been in that trend since science was conceived.

Oh trust me I have. I used to hold a very firm belief in the existence of God.

If there was concrete proof, there would be a stronger argument for God, but instead the idea of God existing has been diminishing over time and less people believe in a God(s) existence. So if you have "concrete" evidence for God's existence, then it would be a revolutionary discovery.

1. You ask me I'm assuming God created it, but you're assuming God didn't create it, so I'll raise your question to yourself: Do you have a scientific proof God doesn't exist?

2. Science is explaining the process of the natural world, either through observation, experiments or fossil. That's all it does. Nothing scientific suggests God didn't create everything, or God doesn't exist. You could say, in other words, science is an explanation of what God creates and maintains. So as my previous question: You ask me what proof do I have that God exists; I'll ask you what proof do you have God doesn't exist? It works both ways, and I'll admit mine is a conviction but so is yours.

3. So your conviction revolves around popular belief? That's a quite silly if you excuse my saying. Less people believe in God because they think science is contradictory to theism, whereas I believe science is actually explaining God's creation.

But again, how do you know this? How do know what God is and isn't affected by or that there is one? Where is your tangible evidence to believe this?

1. Is a programmer affected by the game's laws he makes?

2. I think you're confused with what fact, theory and faith are in science. Scientific fact is either observable or tested. Scientific theory is merely an idea, which still draws faith to it. Just in case you didn't know, faith isn't strictly religion; it can be anything that isn't factual. So if you believe the universe occurred randomly, then you have faith in that by definition, regardless of you saying no.

So don't reference me theories that are not observable or tested, especially not recognized by international scientific community. I want facts. Does science say matter can create itself from nothing? No, it doesn't thus universe did not randomly occurs, invalidates your conviction.

I didn't ask that. I asked how do you know God exists and that he is eternal? What intimate knowledge do you have that describes God's attributes?

I believe the Quran is the word of God not changed for 1400 years, and some verses are scientifically proven. Ancient civilizations from 1400 years ago couldn't have discovered a recent biological fact, like this one as an example:

"And Allah has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four..." (24:45)

Then how did a book from 1400 years ago not been changed whatsoever did?

Asking a questions human and science can't comprehend isn't an answer. Your quest for certain answers is a good quality, but when you try ask questions you can't comprehend, then you won't find answers. That's where faith comes from.

@Bold: Not sure how true that statement is.

So why would God create asteroids that threaten Earth and then create Planets to protect Earth?

If God wanted to create a sign of his power, then why not just make a direct demonstration of his power?

Saying there is divine wisdom on illogical things doesn't make it so. It's just a convenient justification for something making no sense as a way to explain God still exists.

1. Jupiter protects earth from comets is an astronomic fact.

2. God can create and will for anything He wants.

3. God created mankind for the purpose of worshipping him, and he tests us by our conviction harshly. Why make it direct knowing everyone will adhere straight away? Why do you think schools put exams?

What ''seems'' illogical to you can seem logical to someone else. Your whole faith against God's non-existence rises from questions you could never comprehend. Anyway, this wall of text argument is going on for too long.

 

[Edogawa]

This is the logical fallacy of your question.

God is infinitely more complex than the universe; is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but needs no explanation of how he came into existence. But a far less complex thing (our universe) can't exist without having a creator?

It would be like comparing the Mona Lisa (God) to a rock (our universe). You would question how the rock took its shape, but you would not question how something as intricate as the Mona Lisa came to be.

Because science gave an answer as to why the universe can't create itself from nothingness, thus it needs to be created and a creation needs a creator. But as you said, when a creator is too complex for the human brain to understand/comprehend, then it's not matter of how God is eternal, but I know he's eternal but just can't comprehend it with my limited knowledge. If something is infinite (God), then it's incomprehensible but it exists.

You still didn't answer my question. Can a game exist without a programmer? Don't run in circles. It's yes or no.

 

[Lightbringer]

Those religious examples you brought up worship multiple Gods, whereas I believe in only one true God, so the distinction is pretty clear.

That's irrelevant; one God or many, the whole point I'm making is the fact that you're using the same flawed reasoning to justify such an existence being the sovereign over unexplained phenomenon.

1. You ask me I'm assuming God created it, but you're assuming God didn't create it, so I'll raise your question to yourself: Do you have a scientific proof God doesn't exist?

We cannot prove that something doesn't exist because existence is always an axiom. If something does not exist, then we cannot say it has any properties or even really represent it in any meaningful form. To apply a conditional statement to a non-existence is impossible: it assumes that the not-thing you are trying to disprove has properties when a not-thing can't have properties; having properties already makes it, at the very least as an agglomeration of those properties, a something (which must exist).

The burden of proof lies on you, not me. I have basis to say there is no tangible evidence of God, which there isn't.

You are the one claiming that God does in fact exist, which falls on you to provide substantial proof in order to bring any merit to your statement.

2. Science is explaining the process of the natural world, either through observation, experiments or fossil. That's all it does. Nothing scientific suggests God didn't create everything, or God doesn't exist. You could say, in other words, science is an explanation of what God creates and maintains. So as my previous question: You ask me what proof do I have that God exists; I'll ask you what proof do you have God doesn't exist? It works both ways, and I'll admit mine is a conviction but so is yours.

Refer to my previous reply above. You asked the same question twice.

3. So your conviction revolves around popular belief? That's a quite silly if you excuse my saying. Less people believe in God because they think science is contradictory to theism, whereas I believe science is actually explaining God's creation.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion? Science is not a belief, it is accumulative research that is tested and verified. It is physically there for all to see, unlike God.

1. Is a programmer affected by the game's laws he makes?

The problem with this analogy is that the programmer still abides by his own universal laws in order to be able to create the game in the first place.

You claim that God doesn't need to abide by any laws because he created everything. The comparison doesn't work.

2. I think you're confused with what fact, theory and faith are in science. Scientific fact is either observable or tested. Scientific theory is merely an idea, which still draws faith to it. Just in case you didn't know, faith isn't strictly religion; it can be anything that isn't factual. So if you believe the universe occurred randomly, then you have faith in that by definition, regardless of you saying no.

So don't reference me theories that are not observable or tested, especially not recognized by international scientific community. I want facts. Does science say matter can create itself from nothing? No, it doesn't thus universe did not randomly occurs, invalidates your conviction.

All scientific theories are founded upon some sort of data that's been observed and gathered. Theories can be rejected, but that doesn't mean that those theories were made simply from thought. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research.

Here's a link that goes into detail of what a scientific theory is.

You must be registered for see links

Faith is a belief not based in proof. I reiterate, I do not have faith. I'm merely relaying information based on what the science says which can be observed, tested, and challenged.

I believe the Quran is the word of God not changed for 1400 years, and some verses are scientifically proven. Ancient civilizations from 1400 years ago couldn't have discovered a recent biological fact, like this one as an example:

"And Allah has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four..." (24:45)

Then how did a book from 1400 years ago not been changed whatsoever did?

Asking a questions human and science can't comprehend isn't an answer. Your quest for certain answers is a good quality, but when you try ask questions you can't comprehend, then you won't find answers. That's where faith comes from.

Humans bleed and have flesh. To say man is made from water and clay is not a stretch of the imagination. Many religions said similar things; that doesn't mean their religion is self-evident.

Scientific and engineering knowledge have been documented in early cultures that claimed no divine guidance. For example, scientists of Ancient Egypt documented knowledge of engineering and anatomy that were unknown to medieval Europe thousands of years later, such as the existence of cerebrospinal fluid.

Only once a new scientific discovery occurs do proponents of scientific foreknowledge scan the text to look for a verse that can be said to have predicted the latest discovery. Thus, since the process only works in reverse and the text cannot predict new discoveries, the text cannot be said to contain scientific foreknowledge.

What you're doing is cherry-picking passages that fit a certain framework and disregard or even dismiss the vague rest, saying that those are meant to be figuratively and loosely interpreted.

1. Jupiter protects earth from comets is an astronomic fact.

Actually this is still a competing theory whether or not Jupiter is an "Earth-protector."

You must be registered for see links

2. God can create and will for anything He wants.

Again, where's your evidence?

3. God created mankind for the purpose of worshipping him, and he tests us by our conviction harshly. Why make it direct knowing everyone will adhere straight away? Why do you think schools put exams?

And you know this how?

If he wanted us to worship him then why doesn't he just create us to worship him in the first place? Instead we're worshiping other Gods or none at all.

Also, your God was only worshiped from only a fraction of Humanity's existence. The Quran is only about 1400 years old. Humans have existed for over 200,000 years....

Humans weren't even the first species on this planet. It took billions of years for us to finally show up on Earth.

And it took about 8 billion years after the Big Bang for Earth to even be created.

What was God doing all of that time, taking a nap?

Again, where is the logic behind all of this?

What ''seems'' illogical to you can seem logical to someone else. Your whole faith against God's non-existence rises from questions you could never comprehend. Anyway, this wall of text argument is going on for too long.

Ok, well then specifically tell me what is logical about God creating asteroids that threaten Earth and then create Planets to protect Earth? Why create asteroids in the first place if they were meant to be thwarted by other empty planets?

We've only had two exchanges. We haven't really been discussing it long at all if we're being honest.



Let me ask you this. Is there any sort of evidence that would lead you to question the existence of God, because it seems like there can't be? You've created this notion that God can't be disproved because he is infinite and thus there will always be a way to convince yourself of his existence no matter what sort of new data arises.

This is the problem with religion. You will simply believe things without any proof. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying God can't exist, but it is not rational for me to say that I believe in something without any sort of indication of its existence.

It's like saying I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow. Why do I say this? Because faith. But having faith doesn't mean I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow.

 

[Dremolite]

God doesnt exist. Universe created on its own.

 

[Shunsin no Shisui]

Wow, i'm really surprised by the number of votes. I honestly expected there to be more "No" votes than "Yes". It seems like most people here DO believe in a God or the possibility of one at the very least.

With what we know at this stage, no. But, do I hold reservations for the possibility? Sure.

However, when it comes to Gods from earthly religions, then absolutely not. Religious texts have contradictions and historical inaccuracies which leads to them being debunked as credible material for the existence of a deity.

Science builds on a foundation, from bottom up. It starts with a question which then leads to more evidence gathered to explain what is what.

Religion starts at the very precipice with the grand assumption that God exists without any tangible evidence and expects people to simply take what they say is truth on faith alone and not question the validity of what the texts say, even if it contradicts scientific discoveries.


And recently I've been thinking that if a God exists, then what is the point for creating so many empty planets that serve no purpose? Is that really intelligent by design?

That is an interesting point. So do you take Science to be distinct from and more superior to Religion? Do you also believe that there are many things in life which serve no purpose at all? :eww:

In a personal one? Nope.
God was made by people to try the understand the nature and world. It's just a human concept nothing more.

Interesting point. Please explain more, if you can.

I was, but not really sure anymore. Like I said, I'm open to the idea that there can be a higher power and I would absolutely love there to be one, but I find it very unlikely that there could be one, and at this current stage of what science is able to tell us, I do not believe in a higher power.

I try not to make assumptions based on nothing; as much as we can hypothesize the existence of a God, it would be a waste of time as it will lead to nowhere.

You are saying this because you haven't found any substantial evidence for the existence of God, am I right? But you haven't given up on your search yet, or have you?

How do i put it... Yes and no. I don't necessarily belive in god as the all seeing omnipotent being of good who resides in heaven, but, i am open to the possibility, and i personally do belive that there is something bigger than anything that cannot be explained, something responsible for everything happening the way it does. Like some kind of force, a connection or something, perhaps the universe itself, idk.

I admire the fact that you're not entirely ignorant and I also respect that you haven't closed yourself off from the possibility that God may exist.

I am sure there is a higher power I just don't believe that power is under the control of some intelligence. The power of nature - the laws of the universe control all that goes on. Those laws were not developed by some super being. They are just the immutable laws of the universe.

Well here's were I contradict my own logic, I don't think we (us & our world) was created by accident but I don't think what created us is responsible for our decisions or the events that have shapped the world throughout our existence. Anyway, though, the laws of physics are the highest power we can justifiably believe in right now; absent of faith. SO yes, there is a higher power. But whether or not it's conscious is a question of its own.

So you do believe in a higher power, an omnipotent phenomenon rather, but you're not exactly sure what it is? :hmm:

No (agnostic) I guess. If there's no way to verify god's existence and that it is not required to explain nature, there's no need to assume it exists. Even if it does, since it has no influence at any point in my life, I don't see any reason to care.

So what would it take to make you convinced in God's existence?

I can't vote. There should've been a "Not sure" option.

Yah, I apologise to you and others. I should've added another option. The thought occurred to me after I set up the poll, but I guess I was too late since it prevented me from editing it.

yes,

I don't feel like explaining why but i will just say just because you can't see or understand something doesnt mean it's not there.

Fair point, I guess. :yeah:

Dis gon b gud lol.

You must be registered for see images

OP: I'd say not really because I think there isn't sufficient evidence.

Is there any type of proof, in particular that might be convincing for you?

Yes. He created everything. Created reality

Please elaborate. :dunno:

I am agnostic. When it comes to any earthly Gods, it's a big no from me, but when it comes to the idea of a God existing, who am I to say it can't happen?Just today I discovered that the statute of liberty was originally a bronze colour and changed green after oxidation.I know that I don't know everything, so I won't claim that all my opinions are absolute.

When it comes to the idea of religion, what I find very interesting is how some people here in the UK can't pass their GCSE's but for some reason believe they're smart enough to know If a God is real or not.

I find it funny that you're comparing materialism with religion/spirituality. :lol

I believe in the Nordic Gods.

Are referring to Norse Gods? :|

Yes, and there are proofs that i will link if anyone wishes. (post modernists and people with no concept of objective reasoning need not reply)

Please provide the links. *_*

God (Allah) exist, because Allah is the most merciful, and there is an afterlife and there is heaven and hell. Now this would be the obvious yet simple answer a religious guy like me would think of.

I appreciate your comment. I'm finding Islam to be a very interesting religion of monotheism.

As many of you have mentioned science can has reached a point where it can tell us a lot of things but still so many of it is unknown and hypothesized. As my username suggests I have gone deep into many areas of physical phenomena and trying to learn and understand the laws of physics that govern our universe, and have a deep formal education in theoretical physics (What Einstein studied) if this is to any validity. Anyway, they are still so many unknowns in this universe that is seems that the full understanding of the universe through science is unfathomable. Why? Well because we are very limited beings concerned with the wrong things. Many say that different religions base their beliefs on nothing, but honestly that is exactly what science does. When Einstein started his theory of special relativity he based it all on 2 postulates that had no background or basis whatsoever. Many other scientists had to do the same, and many succeeded as well as many failed. It could be that all physical laws are actually nothing that we think they are as this has happened before when so many flaws were found in Classical Physics (Electromagnetism, Classical Mechanics, Classical Thermal Physics, etc.). The science still worked but it was flawed nonetheless. In my case I am a christian and have decided to base my world view on the scriptures of God and not on a specific religion. From here I grow my moral belief and have found it to bee very compelling and convincing. You HAVE to base your worldview on something that will guide your moral compass, and if you do not and solely believe that there is no objective moral standard than it means that there is no difference between you and stardust, which in turn means that there is nothing wrong with someone putting a knife (stardust) into a 2 year old (stardust), stardust into stardust. We can't believe in chance because they is far more room for failure and that would take far more faith than believing in God, which is absurd to me. If this is not enough than in the end have this in mind: If you believe and God doesn't exist you had nothing to lose, but if you didn't believe and He does exist than you'll find yourself in eternal suffering. I don't mean that to cause fear or anything and I don't believe it is the correct way to look at it, but heck it does have a lot of sense in it.

I'm actually glad to find someone who is christian and a learned scientist in Physics. =D While I agree with some of your points, please tell me more about what you think in regards to Science and Religion? Do you also see any connection between the two or not? Please explain.

All people knew about gravity ... But Newton discovered it .

question : Why couldn't early people discover the gravity ?

answer : because it was so obvious ... A thing that is so obvious , is so hard to understand

God is the same ... He's with us the whole time but we can't understand ... Because he is so obvious ...

That is very true. Thank you for your input.

No.

my stance on faith/religion is that i am an agnostic atheist (i don't have a belief in a god, but im willing to change my mind if enough evidence could be shown for the existence of gods / i also admit that gods could exist, however until they can be proven to exist i don't believe in them)

this belief/lack there of is the norm in my country.

Atheism as well as Agnosticism is the norm in most countries. Especially since most modern countries today have established secular governments. I mean Europe is no longer ruled by Christian law, the Middle East is no longer ruled by Islamic law, most South-Eastern Asian countries are no longer ruling by their own religious laws and Tribalism along with Shamanism is being slowly replaced in Africa by secularism as well. So the World has indeed changed and is continuing to change. :hmm:

God exists. If you dont believe in that, how do you explain the practicalities and complexities and mentally intriguing fantasies of our mind and of this material universe? How'd you explain the absymal concrete pillars of great success, only accessible to few?

These're questions which cannot and won't be answered without a forethinking capability to recognize and believe in faith that an almighty god truly exists.

Good point.

Yes I believe in God, it's irrational not to believe in God.

Please explain why you think that it's irrational for people to not believe in God? :yeah:

America, as a whole, needs to just throw the concept of god away.

Stop trying to "figure out" if there's a god.It doesn't matter. It was a man made concept, from JUMP.Bottom line.

It was just a bunch of statements made, and now everyone takes them so seriously. Why is it every human beings "preset" to believe that the existance of a god should be in question or even be considered?It's shouldn't even be a "thing". Everything works on it's OWN.That's how this existence works.

We don't owe some "god" anything, nor do we need to look up to any "god" or answer to one.

It's so STEREOTYPICAL to even "wonder" if there's a god. It's not even a "THING", never was, it was just imagined by humanity, in the first place.

Get this "god" thing out of your heads. Drop it.

But it has already thrown it away. Most Americans are pro-secularists. They even have large amount of supporters from outside of the states, and their numbers are growing. What do you think about that and what is YOUR view on secularism?

That, but the problem is that people do not want to accept reality without a personal God because this idea is attractive, and gives peoples consolation and comfort.
It's like asking a little kid why he thinks that Santa exist, he has no reason or argument to offer you, he believes just because he has been taught to believe..

Tell people that the universe may be come from the excitation of the quantum field, most of them will answer with.. huh? And then tell them that universe was made by God for them pleasure.

It is obvious what the majority will choose and believe. Any idea/scenario that is easier to compress and understand and makes you feel good will be chosen.

Since you do not believe in God yourself, please tell me what you know about any advantages or anything of the sort which you might consider for those who don't believe in God?

 

[Lightbringer]

That is an interesting point. So do you take Science to be distinct from and more superior to Religion? Do you also believe that there are many things in life which serve no purpose at all? :eww:

Well as I've said in many of my comments, there's a stark difference between science and religion. Science is tangible, can be tested, observed, and challenged.

It starts from bottom to top, gradually expanding the web of knowledge through data and research. It doesn't just assume that it knows what's at the precipice of reality like religion does. It assumes nothing without any foundation to build a theory on.

So yes it is superior.


Define purpose? If there's no God or intelligence behind creation, then there is no purpose for anything.

You are saying this because you haven't found any substantial evidence for the existence of God, am I right? But you haven't given up on your search yet, or have you?

Well the search is always ongoing but the search isn't specifically for God, it's for the truth. If we only set our sights on finding God, then we'd simply be chasing down a rabbit hole if it turns out that there is no God to find.

We find what we find by looking at what's in front of us, not unfounded notions of what could be found.

 

[Sagebee]

Yes i believe in GOD my basic reasons are the existence of free will in deterministic reality

And that reality had to come from non casual free agency ponder on that

There's much more but this is something we can all ponder over

 

[Sagebee]

With what we know at this stage, no. But, do I hold reservations for the possibility? Sure.

However, when it comes to Gods from earthly religions, then absolutely not. Religious texts have contradictions and historical inaccuracies which leads to them being debunked as credible material for the existence of a deity.

Science builds on a foundation, from bottom up. It starts with a question which then leads to more evidence gathered to explain what is what.

Religion starts at the very precipice with the grand assumption that God exists without any tangible evidence and expects people to simply take what they say is truth on faith alone and not question the validity of what the texts say, even if it contradicts scientific discoveries.


And recently I've been thinking that if a God exists, then what is the point for creating so many empty planets that serve no purpose? Is that really intelligent by design?

Towards your last point that's from your human lens GOD could made universe so expansive to show how small we are to him it's in human nature to make assumptions there's no way to know intent unless he tells you and that's what religions suppose to be.

But in my opinion you don't need religion to understand that GOD'S a probable concept.

 

[Imp]

[Sub]Wholly.[/Sub]​

 

[Lightbringer]

Towards your last point that's from your human lens GOD could made universe so expansive to show how small we are to him it's in human nature to make assumptions there's no way to know intent unless he tells you and that's what religions suppose to be.

But in my opinion you don't need religion to understand that GOD'S a probable concept.

But that's just a convenient excuse to keep justifying an existence that may not be real as new data arises. You set yourself up to never question an infinite existence because there will always be infinite ways to rationalize it, regardless of what science says. It's not practical, it's bias.

Probable how? An omnipotent who is also omnipresent and has had no beginning to his existence, yet there is absolutely no mark of his existence, doesn't seem probable.

I posed this question before. Why do we have so many empty planets that cannot sustain life? That does not sound like intelligent design.

 

[Sagebee]

But that's just a convenient excuse to keep justifying an existence that may not be real as new data arises. You set yourself up to never question an infinite existence because there will always be infinite ways to rationalize it, regardless of what science says. It's not practical, it's bias.

Probable how? An omnipotent who is also omnipresent and has had no beginning to his existence, yet there is absolutely no mark of his existence, doesn't seem probable.

I posed this question before. Why do we have so many empty planets that cannot sustain life? That does not sound like intelligent design.

Maybe it's a convenient excuse to you that assumes that no religion is compatible with current scientific beliefs. I've been generally researching the question of GOD and validity of religion tirously for over 5 to 7 years now. And conclusion I've come to is the belief in GOD is rationale and I believe there is a religion out there that's scientifically compatible.

We've discussed in a previous thread before why I think GOD is rationale and probable concept.

On to scientific compatibility something that needs to be understood some things are meant to be a matter of belief but there's certain things that are verifiable and meant to be sign posts to the divine. Let's take the story of human origin for example it's true the physical evidence paints the picture that it seems naturalistically likely humans evolved from ancient primates. But for one the story of Adam is only meant to be one part a miracle other part a story for later generations to have faith in. Miracles only serve as physical proof for the ones there directly to witness it anyone outside is just story to have faith in. And a question to ask why have faith that such a story is even possible and it comes down to the paradigm of reality you subscribe to if you view reality just as a materialistic static unintelligent thing then you would assume it's not possible.

But if you view that free will exists and reality came from free agency making reality a living intelligent conscious thing then you would view it's possible.

And these are some subjective questions to ask yourself just to ponder over do you think a regulatory force exists in reality, the hearts said to be the window to the soul and this isn't a metaphorical thing but we talk of pains heart heart being center emotions but you can sense state of your soul from your heart us your heart numb like stone does a weight feel on your heart does it feel like black hole.

Lastly to your last response I believe everything in reality exists to either know him or as a test. For example I believe GOD is one and differentiate the creator from his creation everything else is many.

 

[Lightbringer]

Maybe it's a convenient excuse to you that assumes that no religion is compatible with current scientific beliefs. I've been generally researching the question of GOD and validity of religion. And conclusion I've come to is the belief in GOD is rationale and I believe there is a religion out there that's scientifically compatible.

But that's because you want to believe it; you feel comfortable believing in a God existing. Belief is not founded in logic or data, it's a personal bias.

That's the crux of it all, no matter what I say, you'll never be dissuaded from the idea of God existing if you are refusing to be open to it.

And for the record, I'm not saying a God can't exist, but we just have no evidence to support any such existence. But when it comes to religious belief, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. It's contradicted by science and historical evidence.

On to scientific compatibility something that needs to be understood some things are meant to be a matter of belief but there's certain things that are verifiable and meant to be sign posts to the divine. Let's take the story of human origin for example it's true the physical evidence paints the picture that it seems naturalistically likely humans evolved from ancient primates. But for one the story of Adam is only meant to be one part a miracle other part a story for later generations to have faith in. Miracles only serve as physical proof for the ones there directly to witness it anyone outside is just story to have faith in. And a question to ask why have faith that such a story is even possible and it comes down to the paradigm of reality you subscribe to if you view reality just as a materialistic static unintelligent thing then you would assume it's not possible.

I'm not entirely sure of your point here? Are you saying that the story of Adam is fundamentally true as the bible describes it?

But if you view that free will exists and reality cane from free agency making reality a living intelligent conscious thing then you would view it's possible.

I might be misunderstanding what you're arguing here, but are you saying that decision-making can't exist without a sovereign being?

And these are some subjective questions to ask yourself just to ponder over do you think a regulatory force exists in reality, the hearts said to be the window to the soul and this isn't a metaphorical thing but we talk of pains heart heart being center emotions but you can sense state of your soul from your heart us your heart numb like stone does a weight feel on your heart does it feel like black hole.

I don't see how this is a compelling argument to the existence of an omnipotent being that created the universe?

Lastly to your last response I believe everything in reality exists to either know him or as a test. For example I believe GOD is one and differentiate the creator from his creation everything else is many.

But this goes back to my original point as you'll always justify his existence regardless of the illogical aspects of nature or whatever science has to say.

You will always construe irrationalities of the universe with divine intelligence as a means to justify God when it makes no logical sense.


Let me ask you this?

If there was nothing before God created the universe, then what is God made out of? Nothing?

 

[Sagebee]

But that's because you want to believe it; you feel comfortable believing in a God existing. Belief is not founded in logic or data, it's a personal bias.

That's the crux of it all, no matter what I say, you'll never be dissuaded from the idea of God existing if you are refusing to be open to it.

And for the record, I'm not saying a God can't exist, but we just have no evidence to support any such existence. But when it comes to religious belief, like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. It's contradicted by science and historical evidence.




I'm not entirely sure of your point here? Are you saying that the story of Adam is fundamentally true as the bible describes it?



I might be misunderstanding what you're arguing here, but are you saying that decision-making can't exist without a sovereign being?






I don't see how this is a compelling argument to the existence of an omnipotent being that created the universe?




But this goes back to my original point as you'll always justify his existence regardless of the illogical aspects of nature or whatever science has to say.

You will always construe irrationalities of the universe with divine intelligence as a means to justify God when it makes no logical sense.


Let me ask you this?

If there was nothing before God created the universe, then what is God made out of? Nothing?

Lightbringer do you understand you could have a bias and your actually showing yours? Everyone rationalizes their position its for the person to judge for themselves if there's ration in their position. I acknowledge there's a chance I could have some sort of bias and I try remaining critical of my own positions while talking to a variety of different people to see if my position has weight or flaws to it. Right now your just caricaturing me into a person that just wants to believe and doesn't care for evidence to dismiss my position due your bias. If you find any of my logic faulty specifically point it out and ill judge if it's a fair critique. My dimensions of belief are rationale reasoning, my heart and experiences most people basis of belief is the later two mines not.

Me bringing up the story of Adam is differentiate things that are meant to be based on faith and what is meant to be based on proof. And faith that doesn't haven't have a foundation of truth is false and my foundation of faith is the rationale of GOD'S existence.

My point on free will is free will doesn't come from a static casual deterministic reality free will only comes from free will like life can only come from life. Also we see reality around us is finite dependant or casual whatever you think the cause of origin of reality is it has to be a non casual independent thing which pretty much means this originator or creator of reality is free which aligns with concept of GOD being the creator and being a free agency. So pretty much saying world around us is finite and dependant and this creator agency has to be eternal and independent for reality around us to exist.

And to your last question from nothing nothing comes that's why I was saying whatever ever you view origin of the universe it has to be eternal since it can't of popped into existence from nothing so the origin doesnt have a beginning and if it's dependent on previous causes you would need infinite set conditions where a reality wouldn't come into existence.

Pretty much if GOD does or doesn't exist we have to be critical of ourselves if we really want to know the truth and are doing things conducive to that pursuit there's over 7 billion people on earth who all view there positions to be correct. And you might ask there's 7 billion people and we don't agree what's the truth I believe the truths out there from my searches and that's the thing you have to search and find it and be critical of yourself and judge for yourself is there something out there that aligns with the truth without automatically assuming it does or doesnt.

 

[Lightbringer]

Lightbringer do you understand you could have a bias and your actually showing yours? Everyone rationalizes their position its for the person to judge for themselves if there's ration in their position. I acknowledge there's a chance I could have some sort of bias and I try remaining critical of my own positions while talking to a variety of different people to see if my position has weight or flaws to it. Right now your just caricaturing me into a person that just wants to believe and doesn't care for evidence to dismiss my position due your bias. If you find any of my logic faulty specifically point it out and ill judge if it's a fair critique. My dimensions of belief are rationale reasoning, my heart and experiences most people basis of belief is the later two mines not.

Well I've already acknowledged that I'm not arguing absolutes, that there can or can't be God as a certainty. What I'm saying is there is no tangible evidence of God's existence, thus it is irrational to claim that his is existence is either absolute or probable.

That is where your bias shows, because you're creating probabilities for yourself without actual founded proof; and my example was your rationalization of the logical fallacy I posed as divine wisdom.

Me bringing up the story of Adam is differentiate things that are meant to be based on faith and what is meant to be based on proof. And faith that doesn't haven't have a foundation of truth is false and my foundation of faith is the rationale of GOD'S existence.

So the story of Adam was never meant to be a literal interpretation or a true story within the bible?

But you're saying your faith is based in truth because you know God exists, which you don't. You're simply speculating that he could exist without any sort of substantial knowledge, but rather your own interpretation of things that isn't considered scientific.

My point on free will is free will doesn't come from a static casual deterministic reality free will only comes from free will like life can only come from life. Also we see reality around us is finite dependant or casual whatever you think the cause of origin of reality is it has to be a non casual independent thing which pretty much means this originator or creator of reality is free which aligns with concept of GOD being the creator and being a free agency. So pretty much saying world around us is finite and dependant and this creator agency has to be eternal and independent for reality around us to exist.

You'll have to put this in more layman terms for me, because I'm having trouble following the argument you're trying to make.

If I'm not misconstruing your point, you're assuming that there can be no other factors beside God which made our universe. Considering we don't actual know what came before the Big Bang, it could be millions of different things which caused it. If you claim that God is eternal, then you cannot deny the possibility that existence itself has always been eternal, but merely changing through reactions of whatever particles existed before the Big Bang.

Bottom line is, you're talking about philosophy and hypotheticals which can be argued indefinitely and has no real merit.

Also, your statement on "life can only come from life" is an oversimplification since the things our cells are composed of are technically dead, yet the cells are alive. So your scenario doesn't work within that analogy.

And to your last question from nothing nothing comes that's why I was saying whatever ever you view origin of the universe it has to be eternal since it can't of popped into existence from nothing so the origin doesnt have a beginning and if it's dependent on previous causes you would need infinite set conditions where a reality wouldn't come into existence.

Well like I've said in the reply above; existence could be eternal with no real point of origin. If that is feasible for God, then it should be feasible for other things. I never said that the universe came from nothing.

Also the universe coming from nothing is not the same as the question I posed.

Nothing and God can't exist at the same time; it's a paradox. And if God is not nothing, then he is made from a substance. And if God is omnipresent, meaning he is literally everywhere, then there would be evidence of God's existence.

But if you say God is not a substance and is not made from anything, then he is made from nothing, which means God is nothing.

Pretty much if GOD does or doesn't exist we have to be critical of ourselves if we really want to know the truth and are doing things conducive to that pursuit there's over 7 billion people on earth who all view there positions to be correct. And you might ask there's 7 billion people and we don't agree what's the truth I believe the truths out there from my searches and that's the thing you have to search and find it and be critical of yourself and judge for yourself is there something out there that aligns with the truth without automatically assuming it does or doesnt.

This goes back to the difference between science and belief.

Science starts from bottom up. It doesn't assume things without prior data. As more data accumulates, more theories are created, which leads to more data, and more theories, giving us a web of knowledge. It has a solid foundation through observable evidence and research.

Belief is not based in proof. It starts at the very top and makes its way down. It assumes that God exists and then conflates the rest of reality to support that notion of existence without prior evidence.

 

[Sagebee]

Well I've already acknowledged that I'm not arguing absolutes, that there can or can't be God as a certainty. What I'm saying is there is no tangible evidence of God's existence, thus it is irrational to claim that his is existence is either absolute or probable.

That is where your bias shows, because you're creating probabilities for yourself without actual founded proof; and my example was your rationalization of the logical fallacy I posed as divine wisdom.





So the story of Adam was never meant to be a literal interpretation or a true story within the bible?

But you're saying your faith is based in truth because you know God exists, which you don't. You're simply speculating that he could exist without any sort of substantial knowledge, but rather your own interpretation of things that isn't considered scientific.




You'll have to put this in more layman terms for me, because I'm having trouble following with argument you're trying to make.

If I'm not misconstruing your point, you're assuming that there can be no other factors beside God which made our universe. Considering we don't actual know what came before the Big Bang, it could be millions of different things which caused it. If you claim that God is eternal, then you cannot deny the possibility that existence itself has always been eternal, but merely changing through reactions of whatever particles existed before the Big Bang.

Bottom line is, you're talking about philosophy and hypotheticals which can be argued indefinitely and has no real merit.

Also, your statement on "life can only come from life" is an oversimplification since the things our cells are composed of are technically dead, yet the cells are alive. So your scenario doesn't work within that analogy.




Well I've said in the reply above, existence could be eternal with no real point of origin. If that is feasible for God, then it should be feasible for other things. I never said that the universe came from nothing.

Also the universe coming from nothing is not the same as the question I posed.

Nothing and God can't exist at the same time; it's a paradox. And if God is not nothing, then he is made from a substance. And if God is omnipresent, meaning he is literally everywhere, then there would be evidence of God's existence.

But if you say God is not a substance and is not made from anything, then he is made from nothing, which means God is nothing.




But this again goes back to the difference between science and belief.

Science starts from bottom up. It doesn't assume things without prior data. As more data accumulates, more theories are created, which leads to more data, and more theories, giving us a web of knowledge. It has a solid foundation through observable evidence and research.

Belief is not based in proof. It starts at the very top and makes its way down. It assumes that God exists and then conflates the rest of reality to support that notion of existence without prior evidence.

That's the thing your assuming irregardless if you view if it's supported or not that there definitely isn't a rationale basis for GOD or religion out there. As far as religions goes I believe there's only one true religion that currently exists and that the majority major of religions still existing today have sane origins and message but have been corrupted over time. But right now I'm only trying to show a rationale basis of GOD exists seperate from religion that anyone can reflect on and appreciate.

No I'm saying the story of Adam is a literal story but there's things in each religion whose points aren't meant for proof it's meant as matter of belief and take lessons from. It's like were not expected to prove materialistically how heaven is it's meant to be a matter of belief. That doesn't mean there isn't substance that's meant to serve as proof.

About my point of free will to exist pretty much it's denied by our current framework of reality that views reality strictly casual making it deterministic meaning free agency shouldn't exist and if free agency does exist it can only exist from a non materialistic non casual force.

Which pretty much means if we're free we are free from a non naturalistic manner where the soul and GOD would make sense but simply a metaphysical reasoning of free will is required if you think it exists. So you pretty much have to consider do you think free will exists also the necessity of free will since without choice and accountability doesn't exist where everyone's doing predestined things for no will of their own. Super simple explanation if free will exists it opens the door to the divine or at least a non naturalistic method that isn't beholdened to the laws of physics. Creating a paradigm of reality where free agency in universe exists and laws of physics as we know dont have supreme say.

And I also explain where the GOD model would make sense since the universe to exist would need an eternal independent origin and to be completely independent is to be free so it would have free agency of some form.

So I'm basically saying the GOD model of eternal free agency creator being is a viable and rationale model for reality and such a model is a seperate paradigm of reality where we view reality as a stagnant dead thing with no will of it's own. And besides it being rationally viable like free will what's the implications with it and without it. Super simple explanation universe origin requires a eternal independent free agency where a free willed creator agency aka GOD is necessary for creation to exist the finite dependent existence we see around us.

Even tho I think the necessity of a GOD figure for the origins of reality and for free will that's not why I have absolute certainty but I have absolute certainty and it's threefold reasons which I'll rank most to least important, I have 100% rationale certainty in my religious beliefs, second reason is various experiences in life have shown divine agency exists which is subjective and personal glimpses in the supernatural and lastly listening to my heart and really understanding that's the place of my soul physically being aware of it and from that understanding spirituality means pretty much means monitoring myself for years I'm sure soul exists and have physical connections through GOD with it.

To your point of universe not needing an origin explain how would that be when the universe as we know it it's like dominos following down could the universe be a circular loop it's possible as of now there's no proof for that and so far it's a linear universe requiring a origin where time and causality exists.

And to your last point your presuming that I subscribe to blind faith which I dont if your beliefs aren't based on truths then there's no reason to believe or have trust in it.

 

[Sagebee]

@lightbringer I think I've slightly misunderstood your point on the origin and yes there might be other way the universe is eternal for example maybe if atoms really can't be created or destroyed. But if that's not true and universe as we know it has origin that begins the space time of this reality it opens the door to GOD being effected by space time being a independent free and eternal entity so it's pretty much the universe always existed or the door for a GOD like creator being for origin of reality is open.

 

[Lightbringer]

That's the thing your assuming irregardless if you view if it's supported or not that there definitely isn't a rationale basis for GOD or religion out there. As far as religions goes I believe there's only one true religion that currently exists and that the majority major of religions still existing today have sane origins and message but have been corrupted over time. But right now I'm only trying to show a rationale basis of GOD exists seperate from religion that anyone can reflect on and appreciate.

Key word: believe.

You believe without evidence.

No, I'm not assuming, I'm being pragmatic. Currently, there is no scientific basis which suggests that a magical being that we can't see and is able to do anything and everything that it wants exists. That is fact.

Now, you can rationalize God's existence however you want, but that is once again, not scientific. It's merely an assumption.

More importantly, you're assuming that you know intimately the characteristics of God.

What if God isn't omnipotent?

What if God isn't intelligent, but merely a blind and dumb God who had the power to create and accidentally sneezed us out?

What if God isn't connected to us at all and our existence holds no value to him?

What if God exists but there is no afterlife?


You don't know anything about God or what he is like. So to say that you know how the universe is tied to God and how you know that everything he does is divine wisdom is a logical fallacy. That is not rational.

No I'm saying the story of Adam is a literal story but there's things in each religion whose points aren't meant for proof it's meant as matter of belief and take lessons from. It's like were not expected to prove materialistically how heaven is it's meant to be a matter of belief. That doesn't mean there isn't substance that's meant to serve as proof.

But if parts of the religion are not meant to be true, then how does it make that source credible? How do you know what the writers' intentions were? Perhaps he meant everything to be taken literally, but because some things are contradictory, you instead say it's not meant for proof. There was a time when these texts were taken literally and always have been interpreted in different ways. They're all vague in the way they're written, and you're merely assuming that your own interpretation of these texts is how they were meant to be read.

About my point of free will to exist pretty much it's denied by our current framework of reality that views reality strictly casual making it deterministic meaning free agency shouldn't exist and if free agency does exist it can only exist from a non materialistic non casual force.

Which pretty much means if we're free we are free from a non naturalistic manner where the soul and GOD would make sense but simply a metaphysical reasoning of free will is required if you think it exists. So you pretty much have to consider do you think free will exists also the necessity of free will since without choice and accountability doesn't exist where everyone's doing predestined things for no will of their own. Super simple explanation if free will exists it opens the door to the divine or at least a non naturalistic method that isn't beholdened to the laws of physics. Creating a paradigm of reality where free agency in universe exists and laws of physics as we know dont have supreme say.

And I also explain where the GOD model would make sense since the universe to exist would need an eternal independent origin and to be completely independent is to be free so it would have free agency of some form.

So I'm basically saying the GOD model of eternal free agency creator being is a viable and rationale model for reality and such a model is a seperate paradigm of reality where we view reality as a stagnant dead thing with no will of it's own. And besides it being rationally viable like free will what's the implications with it and without it. Super simple explanation universe origin requires a eternal independent free agency where a free willed creator agency aka GOD is necessary for creation to exist the finite dependent existence we see around us.

Sorry, but I'm simply unable to follow your logic here. I don't see how me being able to decide what I have for breakfast opens up the door for the divine.

If you're saying that we need an eternal will in order for us to be able to decide in the first place, well that's just an unfounded hypothesis.

You're moving deep into philosophy and straying away from reality as we know it. As I've said, philosophy and hypotheticals can be argued indefinitely.

Even tho I think the necessity of a GOD figure for the origins of reality and for free will that's not why I have absolute certainty but I have absolute certainty and it's threefold reasons which I'll rank most to least important, I have 100% rationale certainty in my religious beliefs, second reason is various experiences in life have shown divine agency exists which is subjective and personal glimpses in the supernatural and lastly listening to my heart and really understanding that's the place of my soul physically being aware of it and from that understanding spirituality means pretty much means monitoring myself for years I'm sure soul exists and have physical connections through GOD with it.

Various experiences where you thought to have seen the divine could be something completely different. The mind is a fickle thing and we can fool ourselves into believing we saw something or rationalizing something we didn't understand at that time as supernatural. I know I've had those experiences myself.

A somewhat relevant example would be when there was a video of a spiraling light in the sky which made people think it was a dimension opening or something of alien origin. That light turned out to be a missile that leaked certain chemicals which created that phenomenon. People rationalize what they don't understand to the first thing they are familiar with. That's how religion started. When people didn't understand what lighting or the sun was, they explained it as best they could as supernatural forces.

Saying you "listened to your heart" as a way to understand that's the place where your soul resides is reverse thinking, because when you "listened to your heart" you already had prior knowledge of the concept of the soul. That idea lead to the search of where it resides in your body and you simply thought it was in your heart.

It's not like you had absolutely no prior knowledge of the concept of the soul and discovered that essence through zero bias.

And if the soul can be monitored we would have already been able to discover it.

To your point of universe not needing an origin explain how would that be when the universe as we know it it's like dominos following down could the universe be a circular loop it's possible as of now there's no proof for that and so far it's a linear universe requiring a origin where time and causality exists.

And to your last point your presuming that I subscribe to blind faith which I dont if your beliefs aren't based on truths then there's no reason to believe or have trust in it.

Well, I don't like to speculate without data, so I'm not going to theorize on the nature of the universe. It was just a counterpoint to your idea that it could only be God who came before the universe.

If you prescribe to me that your only proof is your own personal experience and a feeling that only you posses that can't be presented to other individuals to be shared and challenged, then that is in fact blind faith.




You also ignored this point a second time about the substance of God. This is what I said in my last comment:


"Nothing and God can't exist at the same time; it's a paradox. And if God is not nothing, then he is made from a substance. And if God is omnipresent, meaning he is literally everywhere, then there would be evidence of God's existence.

But if you say God is not a substance and is not made from anything, then he is made from nothing, which means God is nothing."

 

[Sagebee]

Key word: believe.

You believe without evidence.

No, I'm not assuming, I'm being pragmatic. Currently, there is no scientific basis which suggests that a magical being that we can't see and is able to do anything and everything that it wants exists. That is fact.

Now, you can rationalize God's existence however you want, but that is once again, not scientific. It's merely an assumption.

More importantly, you're assuming that you know intimately the characteristics of God.

What if God isn't omnipotent?

What if God isn't intelligent, but merely a blind and dumb God who had the power to create and accidentally sneezed us out?

What if God isn't connected to us at all and our existence holds no value to him?

What if God exists but there is no afterlife?


You don't know anything about God or what he is like. So to say that you know how the universe is tied to God and how you know that everything he does is divine wisdom is a logical fallacy. That is not rational.





But if parts of the religion are not meant to be true, then how does it make that source credible? How do you know what the writers' intentions were? Perhaps he meant everything to be taken literally, but because some things are contradictory, you instead say it's not meant for proof. There was a time when these texts were taken literally and always have been interpreted in different ways. They're all vague in the way they're written, and you're merely assuming that your own interpretation of these texts is how they were meant to be read.





Sorry, but I'm simply unable to follow your logic here. I don't see how me being able to decide what I have for breakfast opens up the door for the divine.

If you're saying that we need an eternal will in order for us to be able to decide in the first place, well that's just an unfounded hypothesis.

You're moving deep into philosophy and straying away from reality as we know it. As I've said, philosophy and hypotheticals can be argued indefinitely.




Various experiences where you thought to have seen the divine could be something completely different. The mind is a fickle thing and we can fool ourselves into believing we saw something or rationalizing something we didn't understand at that time as supernatural. I know I've had those experiences myself.

A somewhat relevant example would be when there was a video of a spiraling light in the sky which made people think it was a dimension opening or something of alien origin. That light turned out to be a missile that leaked certain chemicals which created that phenomenon. People rationalize what they don't understand to the first thing they are familiar with. That's how religion started. When people didn't understand what lighting or the sun was, they explained it as best they could as supernatural forces.

Saying you "listened to your heart" as a way to understand that's the place where your soul resides is reverse thinking, because when you "listened to your heart" you already had prior knowledge of the concept of the soul. That idea lead to the search of where it resides in your body and you simply thought it was in your heart.

It's not like you had absolutely no prior knowledge of the concept of the soul and discovered that essence through zero bias.

And if the soul can be monitored we would have already been able to discover it.





Well, I don't like to speculate without data, so I'm not going to theorize on the nature of the universe. It was just a counterpoint to your idea that it could only be God who came before the universe.

If you prescribe to me that your only proof is your own personal experience and a feeling that only you posses that can't be presented to other individuals to be shared and challenged, then that is in fact blind faith.




You also ignored this point a second time about the substance of God. This is what I said in my last comment:


"Nothing and God can't exist at the same time; it's a paradox. And if God is not nothing, then he is made from a substance. And if God is omnipresent, meaning he is literally everywhere, then there would be evidence of God's existence.

But if you say God is not a substance and is not made from anything, then he is made from nothing, which means God is nothing."

I'm going to make some quick points so I can get to bed ill elaborate more later in the day.

First thing scientific proofs aren't the only ways of teaching truth and science requires rationalizing at times to get to conclusions. It seems to me your saying anything you can't be physically verified can't be logically deduced so pretty I don't see it it's not real.

Let's take an example let's say you have three roommates every room in the house there's no mirrors so no way any one get in and out instead of through the front door. Your home the entire time with your roommates in the room which you can't see you walk in the door and see one roommate dead the other bloody can we rationale deduced only one those two can be responsible what happened in the room.

And the key to any logic is causality there needs to be a trail leading back and this trail doesn't have to be directly physically verifiable but can be inferred with general truths.

Also everyone believes something even if you view your position is factual for example you believe being a liberal is factually correct position? There's physically verifiable aspect to my beliefs. But I'm showing you there's solid logic to belief in GOD where physical evidence isn't end all be all and reason is as weighty evidence as scientific. Everyone can give rationale like anyone can provide what they view as legitimate physical evidence doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not assuming what GOD is I'm saying what we can say that rationally has to be true of the origins of reality GOD fits.

But simply we have two general options of the universe we currently see either it always existed or it had a beginning and the implications of this beginning. Which I explain in last post.

I'll address the rest of the points later on today I'll say it's one thing to be skeptical but you've already closed yourself to the possibility that there's a legitimate rationale to GODS existence but instead of assuming it address it maybe my points haven't been simplistic enough but you've made it clear that your firm on your belief that no rationale explanation of GOD'S possible.

 

[Ōkami]

Nope, I outgrew my imaginary friends.