Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

If there is a God, morality existed before anything existed.

Then why he reveal himself to the people that inhabited the earth before people settled in the Middle East?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase your question?

Sorry, I left out a word. Why didn't your god show himself to the people that inhabited China or Africa thousands of years before the people inhabited the Middle East?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

I am not sure who is who in this catfight, but I just want to say that in M Theory, there may be as many as 10^500 universes, each with it s own physical laws. Given that, the possibility of a different planck constant or an exponentially different relationship between matter and energy is not improbable. 10^500 could contain a lot of variation.

A different value of the planck constant is certainly possible and even probable. E=mc^3 can not happen in any universe. A pound will never be a meter. They measure different things. The units on both sides of an equation always have to be the same or the equation is just silly. (sorry, I just can not help myself... am I really more offensive than the grammar and spelling police that haunt DCUM?)

No that is not true. They are postulating universes with entirely different sets of rules. I can see why this is strange but it is not impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

If there is a God, morality existed before anything existed.

Then why he reveal himself to the people that inhabited the earth before people settled in the Middle East?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase your question?

Sorry, I left out a word. Why didn't your god show himself to the people that inhabited China or Africa thousands of years before the people inhabited the Middle East?

If you are referring to the OP, the God I have been discussing is the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause. Other PPs have referred to Christianity.

That being said, if you are asking why Jesus was incarnated at the exact moment he was, in the exact place he was, and no other, that is above my paygrade. However, the timing of his incarnation does not preclude all people from all times and all cultures knowing God, or even from knowing Jesus. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, the second person of the holy trinity that is God, the he is both Jesus the son of a carpenter in the Middle East 2000 years ago AND the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, who can be known through existence, through reason, through the heart and the soul. Revelation is just one way to know God, and we don't know how other cultures and peoples knew God...only that they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

I am not sure who is who in this catfight, but I just want to say that in M Theory, there may be as many as 10^500 universes, each with it s own physical laws. Given that, the possibility of a different planck constant or an exponentially different relationship between matter and energy is not improbable. 10^500 could contain a lot of variation.

A different value of the planck constant is certainly possible and even probable. E=mc^3 can not happen in any universe. A pound will never be a meter. They measure different things. The units on both sides of an equation always have to be the same or the equation is just silly. (sorry, I just can not help myself... am I really more offensive than the grammar and spelling police that haunt DCUM?)

No that is not true. They are postulating universes with entirely different sets of rules. I can see why this is strange but it is not impossible.

Here is a paper on possible alternate universes. Level IV are the ones in which different fundamental mathematical equations govern them. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

It may incidentally provide some interesting questions for people considering religion, as you consider the possibility of alternate copies of "you" who all lived identical lives up until some point where some copies of you did a good thing, and others a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how stupid. 19 pages of this? clearly there is no proof of God, nor is there proof of no god.

either you have faith or you do not.

Oh, you have to be kidding. The subject of religion has occupied humanity for at least the last 3,000 years. If that's not a relevant topic of discussion, I don't know what is. Surely not IHTT or "Hiding my shopping sprees from DH".

OP again, good morning! This made me laugh, which is good, because............

Blah, blah, blah.
OP, you just talk way too much about why you believe in God. But, can you make him/her/it appear in front of our eyes? Until you can produce this proof, this is why we don't believe in your God.

[Anonymous]

Here is a paper on possible alternate universes. Level IV are the ones in which different fundamental mathematical equations govern them. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

It may incidentally provide some interesting questions for people considering religion, as you consider the possibility of alternate copies of "you" who all lived identical lives up until some point where some copies of you did a good thing, and others a bad thing.

Wow! That was a really fascinating paper. Difficult to read. And I didn't understand a lot of the mathematical stuff. But still fascinating to consider that there could be/likely are Parallel Universes of some type. It doesn't really change my belief in God as a Creator. If anything, it makes me believe that Creation is much more than our human brain will ever be able to comprehend.

I loved the analogy of the boat way out at sea. From the shore, you can't see it. But it's there. And as it moves closer, you see more clearly.

Thanks for sharing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:# 10 The argument from quiescence.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? God.

# 11 The argument from unknowability.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? God.

# 12 The argument from Wayne's World.

Asphinctorsayswhat? God.

# 13 The argument from Houston.

How will I know if he really loves me? God.

This may be the funniest thing on DCUM. not just this thread - ever. (Other than the PP who said gravity doesn't exist.) Seriously, well done. Too bad like 3 people will read it, and one is the OP, who won't get it.

[Anonymous]

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

OP, you need to go look up the difference between arguments and evidence. In brief, arguments are something you make, evidence supports arguments, and makes them more than half-assed theories scribbled on cocktail napkins.

When asked for the "evidence" you claim establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God exists, you come up with philosophical arguments. Which is fine, and entertaining, but ducks the question. Well, not so much ducks as ignores and answers a related yet completely separate question.

For the record, I believe in God, but that's an act of faith. Which is the whole point of faith - believing, against all rationality, in the unprovable. (Organized religions, on the other hand, range from amusing and ineffectual to font of all evil in my book.)

If you feel you have to prove (or worse yet, actually HAVE proven) the existence of God using science and "evidence," I can only conclude that your faith is lacking, and you don't actually "believe" in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

OP, you need to go look up the difference between arguments and evidence. In brief, arguments are something you make, evidence supports arguments, and makes them more than half-assed theories scribbled on cocktail napkins.

When asked for the "evidence" you claim establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God exists, you come up with philosophical arguments. Which is fine, and entertaining, but ducks the question. Well, not so much ducks as ignores and answers a related yet completely separate question.

For the record, I believe in God, but that's an act of faith. Which is the whole point of faith - believing, against all rationality, in the unprovable. (Organized religions, on the other hand, range from amusing and ineffectual to font of all evil in my book.)

If you feel you have to prove (or worse yet, actually HAVE proven) the existence of God using science and "evidence," I can only conclude that your faith is lacking, and you don't actually "believe" in God.

Yes, finally. The End.

[Anonymous]

If god is perfect, why do nature and people have imperfections? Why would the creator of all create evolution and not just skip ahead to the more intelligent species? And, why the hell would he cause so much suffering? If there is a creator, he's a total jerk. He could create a utopia, but gives us killer tornadoes, cancer and birth defects not compatible with life? His sense of right and wrong is effed up.

I can see a lot of reasons that humans would want or feel they need a god, but no evidence that one exists.

I reject the hypothesis based on lack of evidence. Even if he was real, I'd boycott him on principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

OP, you need to go look up the difference between arguments and evidence. In brief, arguments are something you make, evidence supports arguments, and makes them more than half-assed theories scribbled on cocktail napkins.

When asked for the "evidence" you claim establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" that God exists, you come up with philosophical arguments. Which is fine, and entertaining, but ducks the question. Well, not so much ducks as ignores and answers a related yet completely separate question.

For the record, I believe in God, but that's an act of faith. Which is the whole point of faith - believing, against all rationality, in the unprovable. (Organized religions, on the other hand, range from amusing and ineffectual to font of all evil in my book.)

If you feel you have to prove (or worse yet, actually HAVE proven) the existence of God using science and "evidence," I can only conclude that your faith is lacking, and you don't actually "believe" in God.

There is a problem with the sentence in bold. Reason and faith are both relative to truth. Reason is a way of knowing truth, of understanding it, proving it, and discovering it. Faith is a way of discovering truth. All human beings have faith, because faith is belief in what others tell us, rather than what we have experienced personally. Reason and faith can lead to truth in matters of science as well as morality.

Dualism is the popular understanding of faith and reason today, though. Dualism divorces reason and faith completely, with ONLY reason as a way of knowing truth. It does this by reducing reason to scientific, mathematical, and empirical reasoning, and faith to a personal attitude or feeling.

However, an alternative makes three different categories of truths:

#1 Truths of faith and not of reason
#2 Truths of both faith and reason
#3 Truths of reason and not of faith

#1 Would be truths revealed by God but not understandable, discoverable, or provable by reason (such as God as a Trinity of persons)
#2 Would be truths revealed by God but also understandable, discoverable, or provable by reason (such as God exists, and there can only be one God)
#3 Would be truths not revealed by God but known by human reason (such as the natural sciences)

Faith is secondhand knowledge, through authority. If we ever find ourselves face to face with God, we will not need faith. But reason and faith are allies, both paths to truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

If there is a God, morality existed before anything existed.

Then why he reveal himself to the people that inhabited the earth before people settled in the Middle East?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase your question?

Sorry, I left out a word. Why didn't your god show himself to the people that inhabited China or Africa thousands of years before the people inhabited the Middle East?

If you are referring to the OP, the God I have been discussing is the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause. Other PPs have referred to Christianity.

That being said, if you are asking why Jesus was incarnated at the exact moment he was, in the exact place he was, and no other, that is above my paygrade. However, the timing of his incarnation does not preclude all people from all times and all cultures knowing God, or even from knowing Jesus. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, the second person of the holy trinity that is God, the he is both Jesus the son of a carpenter in the Middle East 2000 years ago AND the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, who can be known through existence, through reason, through the heart and the soul. Revelation is just one way to know God, and we don't know how other cultures and peoples knew God...only that they did.

Multiple gods for different things. Actually, the Chinese, Japanese, Korean and most of SEA believed in many many different gods and spirits. They did not Know God, as you put it, because there wasn't/isn't One.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you feel you have to prove (or worse yet, actually HAVE proven) the existence of God using science and "evidence," I can only conclude that your faith is lacking, and you don't actually "believe" in God.

Fine admonition. As St. Thomas More said, "What does it avail to know that there is a God, which you not only believe by faith, but also know by reason...if you think little of Him?"

[Anonymous]

the church is just an organized group of beggars. seriously you can invest in the church on the stock market. why the hell would they ask for donations if they are listed on a stock exchange even fi its non-US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the church is just an organized group of beggars. seriously you can invest in the church on the stock market. why the hell would they ask for donations if they are listed on a stock exchange even fi its non-US

What are you talking about?