Does GOD really exist?

[rigney]

Does GOD exist, or simply a metaphor denouncing believers in him; as ignorant? Neither a mathematician, scientist or professing a religion, I grope daily for a better understanding of our universe. Do I get soluble answers? "Rarely". I read through this Christian literature thing about an hour or so ago and thought it was quite interesting, yet not overpowering or provocative. I will likely have my a-- handed to me for presenting it to the forum before the day is over, but it is something that should be considered. Many brilliant people on this program are not faith orientated, but knowledgable in scientific fields because of their education. Me?, I just jump at the chance to offer something different. It's lengthy, but if you'd like to, give it a read and discuss it.

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

Edited January 10, 2011 by rigney

[A Tripolation]

For now and the near future, God isn't a falsifiable concept. He is not testable or observable. Therefore, science cannot answer the question of whether or not He exists. Our theories currently work without the complexity of an omnipotent entity.

 

So, there is no evidence for, or against, the existence of a supreme creator.

Some choose to believe out of faith, others do not, based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

[michel123456]

Ray Comfort?

[rigney]

For now and the near future, God isn't a falsifiable concept. He is not testable or observable. Therefore, science cannot answer the question of whether or not He exists. Our theories currently work without the complexity of an omnipotent entity.

 

So, there is no evidence for, or against, the existence of a supreme creator.

Some choose to believe out of faith, others do not, based on the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

 

I suppose that's why the first statement puzzles me most. Quote: In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown as true for the entire universe.

While the observable universe is a total mystery other using infrared and some extremely good telescopes, it is observation with limited answers. Questions like, "Where did everything come from"?, How long will it last, and where will it go? Does not cease to be a riddle for everyone.

Edited January 10, 2011 by rigney

[michel123456]

I really don't understand the link between this kind of god and christianism: you mainly tell me to believe in Chaos.

 

I suppose that's why the first statement puzzles me most. Quote: In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown as true for the entire universe.

While the entire universe is a total mystery other than prismic observations, they are observables without answers. Questions like "Where did everything come from"?, do not cease to be a concern.

 

That is why I tell everybody here that the Big Bang Theory is a creationist theory. No-one seems to understand.

Edited January 10, 2011 by michel123456

[ydoaPs]

For now and the near future, God isn't a falsifiable concept. He is not testable or observable. Therefore, science cannot answer the question of whether or not He exists. Our theories currently work without the complexity of an omnipotent entity.

Gods most certainly are falsifiable. I have falsified a few gods on this very website.

 

 

So, there is no evidence for, or against, the existence of a supreme creator.

 

If you're talking about the modern western deity concept, then there is in fact evidence against His existence. Things like humans, horrific suffering, and reasonable nonbelief.

[A Tripolation]

If you're talking about the modern western deity concept, then there is in fact evidence against His existence. Things like humans, horrific suffering, and reasonable nonbelief.

 

This is all operating on preordained concepts of how YOU believe an omnipotent entity should behave. Your statement carries as much weight as my campus squirrels thinking they have me behavioral attitudes down-pat.

 

That is why I tell everybody here that the Big Bang Theory is a creationist theory. No-one seems to understand.

 

AFAIK, the Big Bang Theory describes the initial expansion, and says nothing of the initial [math]t = 0[/math] condition.

[ydoaPs]

This is all operating on preordained concepts of how YOU believe an omnipotent entity should behave.

No, it's based on modern theology and philosophy of religion. It's based on what the attributes mean.

 

Your statement carries as much weight as my campus squirrels thinking they have me behavioral attitudes down-pat.

Observation of behaviour≠divine revelation

 

Your comparison is an invalid analogy.

Edited January 10, 2011 by ydoaPs

[A Tripolation]

No, it's based on modern theology and philosophy of religion. It's based on what the attributes mean.

 

From those things, you cannot conclusively state god(s) do not exist. You can only state that the primitive men who decided to write a holy book didn't quite get things right.

[ydoaPs]

From those things, you cannot conclusively state god(s) do not exist. You can only state that the primitive men who decided to write a holy book didn't quite get things right.

Your statement is false. We can indeed say that the classes of gods with certain attributes do in fact not exist. The modern version of the western capital G God is one such god.

Edited January 10, 2011 by ydoaPs

[A Tripolation]

Your statement is false. We can indeed say that the classes of gods with certain attributes do in fact not exist. The modern version of the western capital G God is one such god.

 

Based on what you interpret those attributes to mean. A god that is omnibenevolent doesn't necessarily need to conform to your definition.

[ydoaPs]

Based on what you interpret those attributes to mean. A god that is omnibenevolent doesn't necessarily need to conform to your definition.

A god that is omnibenevolant doesn't have to be omnibenevolant? Really? REALLY?

[A Tripolation]

A god that is omnibenevolant doesn't have to be omnibenevolant? Really? REALLY?

 

A God that is omnibenevolent doesn't have to eradicate all suffering to still be all-good, or all-loving.

[ydoaPs]

A God that is omnibenevolent doesn't have to eradicate all suffering to still be all-good, or all-loving.

I didn't say it did.

[A Tripolation]

I didn't say it did.

 

You implied it by using "human suffering" as a reason god(s) couldn't exist.

[ydoaPs]

You implied it by using "human suffering" as a reason god(s) couldn't exist.

If you're going to quote me, quote me properly. I did no such thing.

[A Tripolation]

If you're going to quote me, quote me properly. I did no such thing.

 

Ok:

Things like humans, horrific suffering,...

 

Was I being rash in thinking that you included human suffering with horrific suffering?

[ydoaPs]

Ok:

 

 

Was I being rash in thinking that you included human suffering with horrific suffering?

http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-argument-from-horrific-suffering-for-the-non-existence-of-god/

[rigney]

I really don't understand the link between this kind of god and christianism: you mainly tell me to believe in Chaos.

 

 

 

That is why I tell everybody here that the Big Bang Theory is a creationist theory. No-one seems to understand.

 

Why would the BB necessarily have had to be the idea of a creationist? I personally have thoughts as many of you, about how this universe could have came into being without god being in the mix at all. Yes, we know the "whole enchilada" came from somewhere, but where? And that's understandable! We just don't know!

We hardly know enough about our own solar system, let alone making an overall assessment of a universe we know absolutely nothing about. And that's not selling a bunch of great minds short who work on it daily. Wish to hell I had the knowledge to do it myself. My problem is in trying to figure out who is most stirring the stink? This dichotomy will never go away as long as there are two people left to differ. Will someone either prove to me that there is a god, or there isn't one. Careful now, I just can't take someones word as gospel, one way or another. And the math, it's beyond me.

Edited January 11, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

First of all, in our everyday life we know that some things seem like they have never been observed to have a start, and in fact the laws of physics forbid such. Momentum, mass-energy, charge, and other items subject to conservation laws, for example. So I reject the premise that everything had a start or that that suggestion is even based on evidence. Secondly, there is strong evidence against god: the entirety of science, all of which works fine without god. A god is unnecessary, provides no predictive value, is extra... and that's at best. Some religions do make testable hypotheses, such as a genetic bottleneck restricting land life to 2 individuals for unclean species and 7 for clean species, which should be observable now.

[Moontanman]

The idea that the big bang some how validates God is a very dangerous proposition. If you require the big bang was caused by God what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no God?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no God no matter what I said last week? Trying to incorporate science into dogma is a bad idea and the idea of a big bang is beginning to loose some support in favor of other ideas like branes colliding in bulk space negating the idea that everything was at one time in a state of immeasurably small nothingness that everything spontaneously came from.

 

Of course the colliding branes answer really only asks more questions as all good answers do. Questions like where did the branes come from? is the multidimensional bulk space really just an eleven dimensional brane in a hyper-dimensional space? meaningless questions? Could it be turtles all the way up and down? The idea of God cannot be successfully defended or disproved by science, science only gives you as good as the evidence it collects, until God decides to reach down and give us a unambiguous sign I see no reason to assume anything about the concept of God other than so far there is no evidence of the existence of god, yes, no, maybe, your guess is as good as mine. I'll do my best to follow the evidence, it's the only rational way to live for me.

[zapatos]

The idea that the big bang some how validates God is a very dangerous proposition. If you require the big bang was caused by God what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no God?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no God no matter what I said last week? Trying to incorporate science into dogma is a bad idea and the idea of a big bang is beginning to loose some support in favor of other ideas like branes colliding in bulk space negating the idea that everything was at one time in a state of immeasurably small nothingness that everything spontaneously came from.

People look for God in whatever they see. I don't think the idea of the big bang validating God is any more dangerous than the idea of the big bang validating cosmological theory.

 

You could just as well say "If you require the big bang was explained by cosomological theory, what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no cosmological theory?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no cosmological theory no matter what I said last week?"

 

Either way you just move on and try for a better understanding next time.

[rigney]

First of all, in our everyday life we know that some things seem like they have never been observed to have a start, and in fact the laws of physics forbid such. Momentum, mass-energy, charge, and other items subject to conservation laws, for example. So I reject the premise that everything had a start or that that suggestion is even based on evidence. Secondly, there is strong evidence against god: the entirety of science, all of which works fine without god. A god is unnecessary, provides no predictive value, is extra... and that's at best. Some religions do make testable hypotheses, such as a genetic bottleneck restricting land life to 2 individuals for unclean species and 7 for clean species, which should be observable now.

 

Well, I'm not going to contridict a word you say, just question. But when you see bold type, it will be your annotations. And really, my questioning will not be trying to trap you into something you're no comfortable with. And religion, I would rather it had not been part of the post, but it was the statemen I saw. I was searching through google and ran across the item and it looked interesting. But your statements: I reject the premise that everything had a start or that that suggestion is even based on evidence? What does that mean in layman terms? Then your second statement: Secondly, there is strong evidence against god: the entirety of science, all of which works fine without god. A god is unnecessary, provides no predictive value, is extra... and that's at best. Me? I'm not concerned by a hypothesis in either direction. Just looking for some subtle truths. Preachers and televangelist's scare hell out of me. But so does unnecessary intrensic and unfounded rhetoric.

[Moontanman]

People look for God in whatever they see. I don't think the idea of the big bang validating God is any more dangerous than the idea of the big bang validating cosmological theory.

 

Not the same thing at all, dogma does not change, religion is embracing the idea of the big bang because it agrees with their dogma, dogma does not change with the evidence, science does, and cosmological theroy is subject to change as is any other scientific theory.

 

You could just as well say "If you require the big bang was explained by cosomological theory, what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no cosmological theory?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no cosmological theory no matter what I said last week?"

 

Again Dogma is not based in evidence, science is, dogma doesn't change with the evidence, science theories do.

 

Either way you just move on and try for a better understanding next time.

 

Yes this is the way science works, not the dogma of religion.

[rigney]

I suppose that's why the first statement puzzles me most. Quote: In our everyday experience, just about everything seems to have a beginning. In fact, the laws of science show that even things which look the same through our lifetime, like the sun and other stars, are running down. The sun is using up its fuel at millions of tons each second. Since, therefore, it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown as true for the entire universe.

While the observable universe is a total mystery other than using, spectroscophy, infrared and some extremely good telescopes, it is observation with limited answers. Questions like, "Where did everything come from"?, How long will it last, and where will it go? Does this not cease to be a riddle for everyone.

Edited January 11, 2011 by rigney