Ye Religion Thread

[reaper]

But if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe.

[DaHanG]

But if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe.  No?

i have a hard time believing that's the reason i am here, it would seem much like winning the lottery. 

this is the theistic perspective i find the very strange. we KNOW we exist, and although i would not compare the likelihood of life in a particular universe to winning the lottery (i know too little to make such a claim on the mathematical probability), we do know how long under earth-like circumstances (not necessarily difficult) the process is for life to begin and become complex - billions of years. if God exists and created us, it certainly wasn't "poof" - here are all humans a few thousand years ago. clearly, the laws of the universe make the process for life to begin a very slow, gradual process.

this is where i would like to distinguish the possibility of god existing and the likelihood of god existing. we know life takes very very long to increase in complexity. god would have to be very very complex indeed (more complex than we can imagine). if the idea that god always existed for the sake of compensating with the complexity of life/the universe works for you, then you're welcome. it doesn't make it in the least bit likely. god probably seems more plausible than he really is because of his unknowability "i don't know how/why he exists, but he simply has to!" (ironic we can't see him to learn more about him  ). let's also keep in mind that god is more complex than any universe could ever be.

 

[quadz]

It's not possible to know whether there is a "hand of god" or not.

[quadz]

But if it turns out the Big Bang happens over and over and over again, then we could just happen to have achieved consciousness in one of an infinite number of serial incarnations of the Universe.

[reaper]

this is where i would like to distinguish the possibility of god existing and the likelihood of god existing

my take on what you said was really only one argument:
god would have to be more complex than the universe, which would seem irrational, and you are just forumlating the idea of god from thought alone.

[reaper]

oh, and i know that's pretty long, hopefully some of you read that and reply
thanks for wishing me luck in finding a job as well quadz, i have an interview monday with a web hosting company, i'd be working with there network, should be pretty fun.  it's a huge hosting company, but a relativley small network, but firewalls and intrusion detection are fun.  i sure hope i'm not getting these jobs because i'm not sending thank you cards, i've never done that and still refuse to. i'm sick of companies interviewing four people for six month contract positions.

[DaHanG]

this is where i would like to distinguish the possibility of god existing and the likelihood of god existing

my take on what you said was really only one argument:
god would have to be more complex than the universe, which would seem irrational, and you are just forumlating the idea of god from thought alone. 

you missed my point. your argument for god's existence consists of "what a lottery humanity hit by existing" and "things are just too complex for their not to be a god". i was pointing out that god is even MORE complex than humanity or the universe. you are explaining complexity by bringing in an even more complex being to do so.

i did not say why i personally do not think god exists, i was pointing out a devastating flaw in your argument. there's a difference between belief in god based on faith and belief based on logic. faith does not require thinking, just believing, and you're entitled to do so. you have chosen the 'logic' path for belief in god, and your logic simply eats itself.

 

[reaper]

i think it's most likley there is a god. my attempt at logic was to put forth the notion that it's not probable we are here according to accepted science at this time. 

you have chosen the 'logic' path for belief in god, and your logic simply eats itself.

i believe in god for many reasons, none of which have to do with what's going on with science

you are explaining complexity by bringing in an even more complex being to do so.

that's not saying much, there's no other explanation to compare - other than total speculation

i wasn't trying to explain complexity, i believe in a god, and was noting that accepted science now would imply a god - or it least imply we are pretty "lucky" (if the big bang theory is correct as it stands)

[reaper]

"Lorca's position is that the atheist and theist positions are evidentially indeterminate; specifically, the 'Big Bang Cosmological evidence is such that either position is equally probable since we just do not have enough information to show which position is stronger."

my take is that the evidence implies a high degree of chance we are able to be here(assuming accepted science now), since i believe in god this supports an argument for the existance of god

apparently stephen hawkings is working on this wave function of the universe idea, where time doesn't have a beggining, and the wave function can predict what every universe will be like, and there will be an infinite amount. 
logically i consider this total speculation, so at this point (in my opinion) there is no simpler theory than a god creating the universe

[DaHanG]

i don't understand how you can acknowledge god is more complex than the universe, but then say he's also more likely to exist than not. you have such a hard time believing we came about naturally (modern science shows there isn't this 'need' you think there is for a god), just because of how 'tough' it is, so you bring the toughest thing imaginable into existence to believe it.

just call your belief faith because you don't make any sense from a logical standpoint.

[QuakeDuke]

not that you were implying this, but lets not confuse what is possible with what is good reason to believe.

 

Ah, but all visionaries have seen as possible what others have not good reason to believe for centuries...

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Yeahbut...  

I thought that was kind of axiomatic?  For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago?  How would we know?

Well, using the reasoning I've been trying to following in this thread, it's impossible for the entire Universe as we understand it to have been created just 30 seconds ago because of all the hard (fossils etc) evidence that points to the contrary To say all this evidence could be done "naturally" in the last 30 seconds and be shown to be millions/billions/trillions of years old doesn't meet (and I emphasis current) current scientific methods...

I don't think most of the science-oriented discussion in this thread has been aiming toward denying the possibility of the supernatural.

My bad. I thought I had read in the thread the very idea of the supernatural was bunk...

And if the supernatural isn't needed to explain the Universe, why invent it?  Sure, there's always the possibility pretty much anything we can imagine could exist somewhere.

Which is why I believe there will always be the supernatural - the more we learn, the more we find out we don't know, and will always try to find a way to explain the unexplainable. Until it becomes explainable, it'll be relegated to the realm of the supernatural.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

faith does not require thinking, just believing

I don't know about that. Even the dictionary defines faith as confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Before I put my "faith" in a doctor, I'm darn sure gonna think about it

QD

[DaHanG]

i don't really have a problem with being dead. it didn't bother me for billions of years before 1988.

How do you know you didn't have a problem with it? The whole concept of a "pre-life" (which would be necessary to have died) opens up the necessity of an "after-life" of some sort. 

Yeahbut...  

I thought that was kind of axiomatic?  For example: would you agree it's impossible to know the entire Universe as we understand it wasn't just created 30 seconds ago?  How would we know?

Well, using the reasoning I've been trying to following in this thread, it's impossible for the entire Universe as we understand it to have been created just 30 seconds ago because of all the hard (fossils etc) evidence that points to the contrary To say all this evidence could be done "naturally" in the last 30 seconds and be shown to be millions/billions/trillions of years old doesn't meet (and I emphasis current) current scientific methods...

i am enjoying the irony behind these two statements. you pick and choose what you like instead of what is most reasonable. a religious person picking and choosing what they like? NEVAR!

DHG

[DaHanG]

faith does not require thinking, just believing

I don't know about that. Even the dictionary defines faith as confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Before I put my "faith" in a doctor, I'm darn sure gonna think about it

so? that's you personally. the key word was require. it allows you to think but it does not require you to do so.

DHG