God

[Damocles]

That's not what I said.

I said that people who are trying to draw a distinction between a belief in God and a belief in fairies are wildly far of the mark.

I didn't talk about the ability to prove a negative.

The difference between a belief in fairies and a belief in a God, is that we are pretty sure about the origins of the Universe, but not the moment of creation. This leaves a void in our knowledge, just as gravitational singularity limits do. This void may be filled with a creator God, or it may be filled with a race of aliens, or a mystical wind, or Beethoven the Dog. Due to this, nobody can say with any certainty what is left in that void thus the existence of God becomes unknowable.

In the same way, I'm also open to the idea of velociraptors wearing pink hats who fart sunlight as the grand creator of all things. What lies in the void is unknown and to rule absolutely anything out is unscientific. However, fairies as they are told in legend have no "void" to fill, thus are extinct.

Science is a process of shining a light on the darknesses that mythology lies and illuminating our understanding. The religion vs science debate is Schroedinger Cat all over again.

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

God is currently both alive and dead as there is no way of telling. When we eventually find the knowledge to shine a light upon pre-Creation, we have then observed the void, thus changed it's state.

 

[tonea2003]

Why do you want people to tell you why you should believe?. I don't care if you do or don't. Nobody should except you.

How sure are you that we just expire when we die? Have you died before? Tell me, are you 100% sure we just expire? Your body does, but what happens to your mind/soul?

Why shouldn't i always believe in god? My believe is not hurting anyone. I am a "scientific" person but i will always believe. I got my own personal reasons for doing so.

I continue to be staggered by the fact that people cannot seem to grasp (on both sides of the argument) that understanding science and having (a) faith don't have to be polarised!

As Tonea2003 has failed to respond to my question, earlier, I can only assume that people of science and medicine that continue to believe are doing so because they cannot explain certain aspects of science and medicine, regardless of their continued studying and teachings.

There must a 'wonderment' factor when they delve into things for I cannot understand WHY they are not simply dismissive of religious belief, as a result of learnings.

is there a time limit on your questions?

i take it you mean

Well, of course, that would happen.

What's MORE interesting though, is that belief hasn't 100% disappeared with that 'greater understanding'. In fact, I daresay, their belief is merely underlined.

Why would that be, then?

but it is disappearing, there is more dissention to the mass indoctrination of belief
i would be saying belief is being undermined not underlined.

 

[BlueMoonie]

This is how i compare my thought on science to religion

Imagine you are in a room with 4 walls, no windows yada yada, enclosed. Science says you kick a ball at the wall infront of you and it will rebound to where it came. I can stand and do this over and over and never see a difference in the outcome. Therefore i have proved to my self that this is infact true and thus beleive it.

Religion tells me i can kick this ball and yes it will come back to me, but 1 day if i keep kicking it will pass through the wall and not return to me.... i can kick and kick and this ball will always come back to me, infact i can do it for the rest of my life and always see what science says will happen, happen and the religious stance never get proved to me, but i should not beleive the scientific statement because there is a book which was wrote a long time ago which states it will 1 day pass through the wall.

It just logically makes no sense to me to be religious

and at my original post i like the thought of religion as i beleive when i die im dead and nothing more, no ever lasting dream, reincarnation etc im just dead. I hate this thought and am scared of dieing so religion i hope would give me a peace of mind

 

[ElanJo]

That's not what I said.

I said that people who are trying to draw a distinction between a belief in God and a belief in fairies are wildly far of the mark.

I didn't talk about the ability to prove a negative.

The difference between a belief in fairies and a belief in a God, is that we are pretty sure about the origins of the Universe, but not the moment of creation. This leaves a void in our knowledge, just as gravitational singularity limits do. This void may be filled with a creator God, or it may be filled with a race of aliens, or a mystical wind, or Beethoven the Dog. Due to this, nobody can say with any certainty what is left in that void thus the existence of God becomes unknowable.

In the same way, I'm also open to the idea of velociraptors wearing pink hats who fart sunlight as the grand creator of all things. What lies in the void is unknown and to rule absolutely anything out is unscientific. However, fairies as they are told in legend have no "void" to fill, thus are extinct.

Science is a process of shining a light on the darknesses that mythology lies and illuminating our understanding. The religion vs science debate is Schroedinger Cat all over again.

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

God is currently both alive and dead as there is no way of telling. When we eventually find the knowledge to shine a light upon pre-Creation, we have then observed the void, thus changed it's state.

That's fine but (almost) everyone who compares belief in god with belief in fairies (in the context of lack of evidence) do so with regards to proving a negative, whether they're conscious of this or not.

BTW, just because Fairies fill no void (according to you) doesn't render them extinct. What void do birds fill? None. Yet they exist.

Anyway, you're saying that gaps in knowledge allow for a god to possibly exist. You can say the exact same thing about fairies. We don't know everything therefore the belief in fairies and the belief in God are akin to each other. I'm not saying that it disproves a god of some kind but that doesn't stop the comparison being a valid one.<br /><br />-- Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:17 pm --<br /><br />

The Egg
By: Andy Weir
...
“Why?” You asked me. “Why do all this?”
“Because someday, you will become like me. Because that’s what you are. You’re one of my kind. You’re my child.”
“Whoa,” you said, incredulous. “You mean I’m a god?”
“No. Not yet. You’re a fetus. You’re still growing. Once you’ve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.”
“So the whole universe,” you said, “it’s just…”
“An egg.” I answered. “Now it’s time for you to move on to your next life.”
And I sent you on your way.

This last bit summarized the whole point of existence ( the way i see it).
We are the only ones here ( on earth) that can preserve and create life on different planets, different parts of the universe (different universes) . We are the only ones capable of spreading life outside our planet ( excluding "natural events", evolution, etc.) . I think that's the whole "purpose". Without life, the universe will not exists (how does it exists if nothing can realize that it exists?) so humans are here to spread it all across the universe. Who's to say, we are not the creation of some other beings creating life on other planets?
We see them as being the almighty but in fact it could be us from the future(different universe?). But then which came first, the egg or the chicken? ( it was the dinosaur... )

One thing is certain, we don't know what happens when we die, but everyone will find out.

One of my favorite quotes.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

Having said all that, I believe in God and i will always do so.

What? existence isn't dependant upon the mind. Besides, for many many many years the universe did exist without life. Did it therefore not exist?

As for you Einstein quote. If you read the letter from which this quote is lifted you can see how he defines religion. He basically defined it as 'how we (ought to) live our lives'. I'd say "philosophy" would be a more apt word to use... tho the quote would lose some of it 'zing'

"Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship"

 

[tonea2003]

why will you always do so, i find this intriguing

-- Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:36 am --



agreed i'm all ears as well, tell me why i should believe?

Why do you want people to tell you why you should believe?. I don't care if you do or don't. Nobody should except you.

maybe i should have put it another way, i'm intrigued why you will always believe and with such a strong statement like that maybe you can tell why i should
How sure are you that we just expire when we die? Have you died before? Tell me, are you 100% sure we just expire? Your body does, but what happens to your mind/soul?

i'm not sure but the evidence i have says that's the most likely outcome.
i have yet to see proof of afterlife/souls or anything else spiritual for that matter but i'm open to evidence if you have it

Why shouldn't i always believe in god? My believe is not hurting anyone. I am a "scientific" person but i will always believe. I got my own personal reasons for doing so.
but you come a open public forum, people will respond and ask questions if you make declaration. if they are personal keep it that way and say nowt![/quote]

 

[ElanJo]

I have pretty strong views on theism and am highly scientific, as some may have already read.

However, empirical science is the way in which we choose to define our reality with the differences between facts and myth. Those presenting an argument that a belief in a God-like figrue is akin to a belief in fairies are just plain wrong.

Theoretical physics, especially that pertaining to space, is full of theories based on very little evidence. Black holes, for example, were never really observed until recently yet they were predicted by various models of the laws of the universe. A lot of phenomena that we take for granted as 'true' is stuff that is predicted but cannot be observed. Dark matter is a particularly annoying thing that is pretty recent and in my opinion, seems to be based more around necessity to fit a system rather than observational evidence.

Anyway, my point of this, is that none of us can really comprehend the Universe as it is. The signs point to a single point in space that started the Big Bang effect, but the recent discovery that the Universe's expansion is actually speeding up has thrown a few doubts into the model.

Even if you personally believe the Big Bang/dark matter model, this still doesn't answer the fundamental question of how the moment of creation came to be. Saying that there is no God is as much a leap of faith as saying that there is. The only real answer is that we have no evidence either way to suggest a true theory.

LOL!!!!!

Oh fooking yes!!

Damo, I'm not religious, per say and I'm not dismissive of science. I'm VERY open minded about both and have believe for the longest time that they both have a role to play with each other.

I digress, though, as your above post is something I've been arguing with Elanjo for the longest. I just gave up, in the end!

I once said to him that his brand of science is JUST as fantastical as the dismissive views of religion he projects. We rowed for ages.

It's nice to have a view, similar to mine, coming from another direction!!

You've said so many silly things that you'll have to excuse me for not remembering this particular occurance.

 

[Damocles]

That's fine but (almost) everyone who compares belief in god with belief in fairies (in the context of lack of evidence) do so with regards to proving a negative, whether they're conscious of this or not.

BTW, just because Fairies fill no void (according to you) doesn't render them extinct. What void do birds fill? None. Yet they exist.

You've misunderstood my point. The concept of the void is a gap in our understanding of our surroundings. Thus, God can fill a void because God fills a gap in our understanding of creation, but fairies cannot as they DON'T fill in a gap of our understanding about the world in which we live.
Birds don't need to fill a void, simply because they are plainly shown to exist through empirical evidence.

Anyway, you're saying that gaps in knowledge allow for a god to possibly exist. You can say the exact same thing about fairies. We don't know everything therefore the belief in fairies and the belief in God are akin to each other. I'm not saying that it disproves a god of some kind but that doesn't stop the comparison being a valid one.

If you can tell me the gaps of human understanding that the traditional myth of a fairy "illuminates", then I'll give you the point.

 

[Mrs. Huggett]

Just a different slant on the subject. I have recently been reading a book about NDEs, now the Author was a surgeon that goes by the name of Raymond A moody, and he had if you like, a hands on experience with NDEs. Of the people that he interviewed shortly after a NDE, there was a very small percentage that reported having a very bad/nasty experience, in which the subject said that he/she came face to face with a truly despicable and very upsetting image, in which a being came towards him/her as if to collect them, until another being telepathically said(all NDErs report telepathy rather than speech) it is not his/her turn yet, take them back upstairs, and the subject reported seeing a million people and all were whining, screaming and crying, also complaing that they had no water and they were very thirsty and needed help, a very upsetting thing for the NDE'er to have experienced. Now of the good NDEs, nearly everyone reported a blissful experience and infact were pissed off with the medics for returning them to this realm or existance. Nearly all reported being shown a re-run if you like of their own lives, and the thing that they most remembered was being shown were they have upset a person(s) and were indeed made to feel how the upset person actually felt, only magnified a 100 times so that the subject felt the full impact of their own actions, and as i said earlier, all new what the beings were saying through telepathy, crystal clear as well.

Sorry to deviate but i gthought it relevant to throw in the old NDE situation.

 

[ElanJo]

"7 days" depends on whether you take it 'literally'! Do you mean the definition of a 'day' in modern meaning or the Biblical meaning? Do you mean 7 days as in 24 hrs a day? Or do you mean 7 million years?

What is the biblical meaning of a day then? And how does saying 7 million years (or 7 whatever) make it any better?

 

[BulgarianPride]

That's not what I said.

I said that people who are trying to draw a distinction between a belief in God and a belief in fairies are wildly far of the mark.

I didn't talk about the ability to prove a negative.

The difference between a belief in fairies and a belief in a God, is that we are pretty sure about the origins of the Universe, but not the moment of creation. This leaves a void in our knowledge, just as gravitational singularity limits do. This void may be filled with a creator God, or it may be filled with a race of aliens, or a mystical wind, or Beethoven the Dog. Due to this, nobody can say with any certainty what is left in that void thus the existence of God becomes unknowable.

In the same way, I'm also open to the idea of velociraptors wearing pink hats who fart sunlight as the grand creator of all things. What lies in the void is unknown and to rule absolutely anything out is unscientific. However, fairies as they are told in legend have no "void" to fill, thus are extinct.

Science is a process of shining a light on the darknesses that mythology lies and illuminating our understanding. The religion vs science debate is Schroedinger Cat all over again.



God is currently both alive and dead as there is no way of telling. When we eventually find the knowledge to shine a light upon pre-Creation, we have then observed the void, thus changed it's state.

That's fine but (almost) everyone who compares belief in god with belief in fairies (in the context of lack of evidence) do so with regards to proving a negative, whether they're conscious of this or not.

BTW, just because Fairies fill no void (according to you) doesn't render them extinct. What void do birds fill? None. Yet they exist.

Anyway, you're saying that gaps in knowledge allow for a god to possibly exist. You can say the exact same thing about fairies. We don't know everything therefore the belief in fairies and the belief in God are akin to each other. I'm not saying that it disproves a god of some kind but that doesn't stop the comparison being a valid one.

-- Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:17 pm --

This last bit summarized the whole point of existence ( the way i see it).
We are the only ones here ( on earth) that can preserve and create life on different planets, different parts of the universe (different universes) . We are the only ones capable of spreading life outside our planet ( excluding "natural events", evolution, etc.) . I think that's the whole "purpose". Without life, the universe will not exists (how does it exists if nothing can realize that it exists?) so humans are here to spread it all across the universe. Who's to say, we are not the creation of some other beings creating life on other planets?
We see them as being the almighty but in fact it could be us from the future(different universe?). But then which came first, the egg or the chicken? ( it was the dinosaur... )

One thing is certain, we don't know what happens when we die, but everyone will find out.

One of my favorite quotes.

Having said all that, I believe in God and i will always do so.

What? existence isn't dependant upon the mind. Besides, for many many many years the universe did exist without life. Did it therefore not exist?

As for you Einstein quote. If you read the letter from which this quote is lifted you can see how he defines religion. He basically defined it as 'how we (ought to) live our lives'. I'd say "philosophy" would be a more apt word to use... tho the quote would lose some of it 'zing'

"Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship"

It actually is. We are talking about human believes and the human mind. To us, the universe does not exist until life was created. Although we know it existed, but thats because we are alive. You see. If we were never alive we would of never known about the existence of the universe therefore it did not exist.