Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

but you're just inventing god into existence in the first place....you don't see a problem with this?

i believe a highly complex intelligent spoon created the universe. there is absolutely no evidence to support this, but why the hell is there something instead of nothing? it's impossible! the spoon must have created everything since this something needs a cause. we know far too little about this spoon to say whether or not itself demands a cause, so let's just shew the problem away and say he (it's a male spoon) doesn't need a god! problem solved 

[Whirlingdervish]

  All hail The God-Spoon, and cower in fear of his mighty powers! 

[reaper]

but you're just inventing god into existence in the first place....you don't see a problem with this?

i believe in god, why would i see a problem with that?  my reasoning behind god's existence, is not solely based on the big bang. 
a while ago i used to wonder if you would be a faster skier if you were heavier,  i found out it doesn't matter much, because of gravity.  i always thought you would ski faster if you were heavier; however that wasn't the case (the wind resistance is minor).  god and science to me are apples and oranges.  however if the big bang theory is correct,  i would use this as an argument(evidence) to support religion.    if you think accidents don't happen, and the formation of the universe is an accident(or improbable event), you could come to the conclusion there is thinking behind the big bang.  especially when there is a massive amount of evidence supporting the idea of a higher power. at this point you don't need to cherry pick what scientific evidence you do , or do not want to believe, it all fits with my prior hypothesis.

i believe a highly complex intelligent spoon created the universe. there is absolutely no evidence

in this thread i've been a pretty big proponent that is there is evidence for a god.  the evidence, by nature, is not empirical evidence.

[DaHanG]

nope, not a single shred of evidence of any kind. the one smidgeon of a gap where god is alleged to exist is the 'why is there something rather than nothing'. we tend to just say well hmm that doesn't make sense to me, let me solve the problem of inventing a god to get rid of that cause - and we all know that the most powerful and intelligent entity imaginable does NOT require any sort of explanation in it of itself. problem solved. :>

[reaper]

  nope, not a single shred of evidence of any kind.

that depends on how you are categorizing evidence.  god fits into our current scientific understanding of things, and also with rational supporting arguments.  alone these arguments don't suffice, but with more reasoning, in my opinion, they build a very strong case for a god, stronger than any explanation science has.

let's take a look at the gaps in science, which are filled in with god more reasonably(in my opinion) than anything else.  science do es not know how and why the universe is there, and it's improbable (at inception) to get a life sustaining universe.  stephen hawking put forth a vague proposal that he can make some scientific law work before the big bang.  none of this is testable, and i'm not sure if you categorize vague scientific proposals as evidence (i assume you define evidence based on scientific methodology).  none of this evidence is tested, we can test the big bang theory against predictions.  my point is how much evidence we lack for any other explanation contrary to god.  so any evidence to the contrary is the type of evidence people use to support the belief in god

[DaHanG]

  nope, not a single shred of evidence of any kind.

that depends on how you are categorizing evidence.  god fits into our current scientific understanding of things, and also with rational supporting arguments.  alone these arguments don't suffice, but with more reasoning, in my opinion, they build a very strong case for a god, stronger than any explanation science has.

how does god fit into our scientific understanding of things? science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING. why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god. philosophy of eliminating the infinite regress by something immune to it is not 'evidence'.

let's take a look at the gaps in science, which are filled in with god more reasonably(in my opinion) than anything else.  science do es not know how and why the universe is there, and it's improbable (at inception) to get a life sustaining universe.  stephen hawking put forth a vague proposal that he can make some scientific law work before the big bang.  none of this is testable, and i'm not sure if you categorize vague scientific proposals as evidence (i assume you define evidence based on scientific methodology).  none of this evidence is tested, we can test the big bang theory against predictions.  my point is how much evidence we lack for any other explanation contrary to god.  so any evidence to the contrary is the type of evidence people use to support the belief in god

i personally think i am on a divine mission. it's improbable that i would be born on exactly july 19, 1988, in lake worth florida as oppose to being at any other location on any other date. it's just too improbable and nothing fills in this improbability more reasonably (in my opinion) than god.

[reaper]

why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god.

i'm positive they know more about science than i do, that doesn't mean they know anymore about the existance of a god.

personally think i am on a divine mission. it's improbable that i would be born on exactly july 19, 1988, in lake worth florida as oppose to being at any other location on any other date. it's just too improbable and nothing fills in this improbability more reasonably (in my opinion) than god.

that's a pretty accurate analogy, except replace florida with a life sustaining universe.  keep in mind, this is even more peculiar if there is only one big bang.

[DaHanG]

why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god.

i'm positive they know more about science than i do, that doesn't mean they know anymore about the existance of a god.

well from a rational and logical point of view, it does in a sense. science's goal is to seek the truth based on evidence/logic/rationality. these people are experts at what they do within their kingdom of reason.

personally think i am on a divine mission. it's improbable that i would be born on exactly july 19, 1988, in lake worth florida as oppose to being at any other location on any other date. it's just too improbable and nothing fills in this improbability more reasonably (in my opinion) than god.

that's a pretty accurate analogy, except replace florida with a life sustaining universe.  keep in mind, this is even more peculiar if there is only one big bang.

that's exactly the point. did i really have good reason to explain away something very very improbable with god? of course not.  you should dismiss me and ask for evidence.

there is no evidence to my knowledge that we are, in fact, in the only universe that exists. i'm curious how you distinguish between the lack of evidence against us being one of an infinite number of universes (the ultimate argument against intelligent design) and the lack of evidence of god himself. there is no evidence to conclude that we are the only universe or that we were created by the most intelligent/powerful being imaginable that does not require an explanation for why it itself exists. so why did you make a choice on the side of god instead of the multiverse?

your obsession with lack of knowledge could easily turn to the direction of "science knows too little about the possibility our universe being the only one, and since it's 'very very unlikely' for the universe to be capable of sustaining life, i'd say it's more reasonable to conclude that our universe is only a bubble within an ocean of universes."

i'd have to conclude that since you are raised in a world obsessed with this invisible omnipotent being, you are far more likely to take the god theory over the multiverse theory.

[quadz]

keep in mind, this is even more peculiar if there is only one big bang.

dahang's comments on the possibility of a multiverse aside, I fail to see how anyone who believes in God can have the hubris to imagine there's only One Big Bang.  We know from the laws of physics that this Universe will either (A) freeze (heat death), or (B) collapse on itself.  Is God just going to go into Infinite Hibernation after our Universe ends?

Obviously if God is Infinite, He's going to do Something Else after our Universe ends, no?

Note, by "hubris" I mean: the assumption that "we" are really so important in the scheme of things that this Universe was created specially for us, and it will be the Only One.

It seems to me if you believe in an infinite, Omnipotent God, you _can't_ believe this is the Only Big Bang.

...no ???

Regards,

quadz

[QuakeDuke]

how does god fit into our scientific understanding of things? science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING. why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god. philosophy of eliminating the infinite regress by something immune to it is not 'evidence'.

I am following these discussions with interest - I must point out though, using a fact that a majority of people believing in (or in this case disbelieving  in) something really has no bearing on whether something is or is not true, a fact, etc. Majorities have been wrong (and well able to state "facts" to back up their positions) for as long as we have recorded history (probably longer).

Continue people, continue....

QD

[DaHanG]

how does god fit into our scientific understanding of things? science has shown there is absolutely no need for god to explain ANYTHING. why do you think the national academy of sciences (people who know far more than us) have 93% of it's members in disbelief in a god. philosophy of eliminating the infinite regress by something immune to it is not 'evidence'.

I am following these discussions with interest - I must point out though, using a fact that a majority of people believing in (or in this case disbelieving  in) something really has no bearing on whether something is or is not true, a fact, etc. Majorities have been wrong (and well able to state "facts" to back up their positions) for as long as we have recorded history (probably longer).

Continue people, continue....

QD

although it may not have been very clear, that is, in a sense my point. the majority of the world believes in god, and that does not mean they are right. when there are overwhelming statistics of scientists opposing the concept of god, one must wonder why. why is it that people who study how things are are far more susceptible to disbelief in god? why is it that people who have never studied evolution will almost certainly believe in intelligent design? my point was only that if god existed, science would only help reveal him; yet we see through the consensus of belief among scientists, they are FAR less inclined to believe in god than a non-scientist.

[metaL]

omnipotence does not exist.. its just an abstract, radical concept that shares no relationship with God or man.

[quadz]

omnipotence does not exist.. its just an abstract, radical concept that shares no relationship with God or man.

Interesting - do you have some idea as to what God's inabilities, limits, and limitations may be?

From what you've said so far, it sounds like you may believe in a God who would not be able to create a Universe which began with a singularity and unfolded forward from a Big Bang, on its own?  Even if He wanted to?


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

there is no evidence to conclude that we are the only universe or that we were created by the most intelligent/powerful being imaginable that does not require an explanation for why it itself exists. so why did you make a choice on the side of god instead of the multiverse?

why does what i believe have to be solely based on scientific evidence?  i understand what science has explanations for, and i don't think they are applicable to a belief in god (one way or the other).

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A1.html
this is one of the best pages i've found describing the possibility of multiple big bangs, and multiple universes existing at one time.  it's not written from a theistic perspective.

from what i gather, no one knows much about these possibilities.  however if you think we grasp a solid scientific understanding of how and why all things happen, you would certainly be looking in this direction.  if this is not the case, saying we are here because we observe things this way, isn't going to fly with anyone.  we are going to have to find another explanation other than matter just being there, and an extremely improbable occurence.  the top scientists admit we don't know much about multiple big bangs, or multiple universes.  anyways i'm going to speculate a little.

for multi-universe:
is this an arbitrary number, why isn't it infinite, in which case this universe wouldn't exist?
if there are many universes existing simultaneously why don't they have an effect on one another?

if this is the case, we know exponentially less about how and why things happen.

multiple big bangs consecutively:
we do know there is a vague proposal that would fix the time element for this.
we do not know why matter exists.
dropping out of physics in high school isn't helping out!

i suppose most scientists like to work with theories they can test based on observation, but it would be interesting to know, if the possibility of a multi-universe, or multiple consecutive universes is ruled out, or in by science.

did i really have good reason to explain away something very very improbable with god?

to each his own

[reaper]

they are FAR less inclined to believe in god than a non-scientist.

i've been trying to stay away from discussion like this, but i do want to add something.