Is there a God??/???

Great Debates
101

Wow TBC, I believe in God and I think your arguments are incredibly lame. It’s all pretty much been said here, but I’ll give you my opinion, unbiased by “atheism”. The Universe didn’t HAVE to begin anymore than God had to. Obviously you don’t believe there was ever “nothing”, because you believe God has always existed. If you believe God has always existed, then you should be able to believe the Universe has. Even with the relatively limited amount that we know about the Universe from the different sciences, it’s undeniable that the it took billions of years to be where we are right now. God or no God, it’s obvious that the universe changed and that made it possible for us to be here. Whether God started the process or NOT, we are a product of billions(or trillions, whatever) of combinations that the universe went through, until one made life possible. Looking at the finished product makes it impossible for you to see all of the combinations and changes the universe went through, that did NOT make life possible. It only looks intentional because you can’t see all the failures.

There are gaps and nobody denies that. Their only argument against God is there’s no evidence for his existence. Honest point. Believing in God by default, because you can’t explain things any other way is kind of a stretch. Hopefully by the time some more of those “gaps” close, you’ll have come up with a new reason for your beliefs.

102

No, you are misunderstanding…I’m not saying it was shallow of you to mention this thing. I’m saying (poorly) that Sagon was a bit shallow for saying it. I guess even that is wrong of me to be honest. Its just that the statement is so…trite I suppose, and so devoid of meaning. Its a sound bite I guess is what I’m getting at.

I love Sagan to be honest, always did, and became an even bigger fan of his when I started reading some of his other works. However, he could be a bit…odd…at times, and I didn’t agree with everything he said, respecting the man but not following him (or anyone else) with my brain turned off and my reason thrown out the door. :slight_smile:

I don’t take anyone or anythings word for ‘gospel’ either. I was also brought up a Catholic btw, and have also heard stuff like TBC’s analogy before…myriad times. And they have always fallen flat to me because they nearly always presuppose some basic assumption that doesn’t pan out in the real world (like the supposed correlation between ‘blind men’ and ‘rain’ to ‘us’ and ‘god’, for instance). I’ve actually heard a very similar analogy to this one before when discussion theology with the Priest of the church my wife and her family go too (he’s a really great guy, very intellegent, and he loves to argue theology as much as I do), and he pretty much conceeded that if take away the narrow and false constraints the thing falls appart. Like TBC he still felt it was a valid analogy for comparison though. We basically agreed to disagree as we usually do. :slight_smile: I have to admit though Father Grace (the Priest) is a bit more flexable and imaginative that TBC showed in this discussion…and a bit less hard headed too.

-XT

103

I have one on my mantle and he’s very powerful. The other day I overslept and was going to miss my plane. I prayed to him and the plane was delayed, so I made the flight. :smiley:

104

My problem with the Universe, matter, and energy “always existing” is that there is no model for perpetual motion. Energy, which every atom contains, cant last forever, so logically it couldnt have existed eternally either.
There will come a time when all molecules will cease to move, energy will be depleted and time stops. Logically, following backwards in time, then the universe could not have existed “always”. Henceforth, God.

105

Incorrect. There is no model for perpetual motion in an open system. For a closed system, perpetual motion is quite possible, since the closed system cannot, by definition, lose any of its energy to an outside system.

Incorrect. There will come a time when all molecules in the universe are at an even 3[sup]o[/sup] Kelvin (barring some sort of Big Crunch to compliment the Big Bang).

106

OK, then by your own admittance if the universe has been in existence forever, then this would have happened by now.
If you concede that time has no beginning, then the universe is backwards and forwards eternal.

Then if it hasn`t happened yet (the 3 degrees Kelvin)
when exactly will it happen?

IOW, by saying that the universe is and always was, you are saying that if the 3 degrees Kelvin hasn`t happened yet then it never will. (Eternity has no beginning and no end, so the Kelvin temp will never occur.) If you admit that the universe is framed with limits of time then you are saying that the universe has a beginning and an end therefore giving way to a creator.

Eternity is a hard concept to wrap the brain around isn`t it?

107

BTW, what is the model for Perpetual Motion? How does that affect the conservation of energy? A closed system?

How can a system be open? If it`s open then by def it is relative to another system., NO?

108

Closed systems are only theoretical constructs. They don’t exist in the universe except for the universe, itself, as an all-encompassing uber-system.

You seem to be flogging a cosmological (“First Cause”) argument for God but there are a couple of major problems with that argument. Firstly, the premise that the universe requires a “cause” is not proven. The Big Bang could plausibly have been a totally random quantum event. secondly, there was no “time” before the universe, so there was no time that the universe did not exist. Thirdly, there is nothing in Big bang theory or Quantum theory which requires a supernatural hoodoo. No reason to hypothesize 'God." The universe is contingent on no such thing. Fourth, even we went with your magical Prime Motor you would still be left with the same conundrum. Where did the First Mover come from. Why does it exist?

It’s been her forever, you say. Well so has the universe if you really want to get technical.

Can you explain how a First Mover can exist without time or matter or space? What could possibly define it as being existent?

109

Gottcha,

Except, what is the general scientific explanation for the existence of matter required for a Big Bang. Where did the matter come from that caused the Big Bang. If you say “no cause” then I will be forced to believe that matter did not exist before the Big Bang. If that is the case then we have the beginning of time figured out. Now,we also have a starting point for the existence of matter. When/where did it come from?

If the Big Bang is cylical, then we have eternity figured out. By definition we should have run out of energy by now.

If there is no start to all this then there is no end. All the physical limits of energy and matter are dependent on a beginning and an end.

If there is a beginning and an end to all this then we need to figure out where the shit came from.

110

The universe has always existed.

Uncommon Sense, you are labouring under the misapprehension that time somehow exists independently of the universe. The singularity at one end of our universe is timeless. Think about that for a moment. You cannot have “prior to” or “before” a timeless entity. Matter didn’t “come from” anywhere outside the singularity (in fact, matter is what is left over from the annihilation a few seconds later than the timeless singularity).

The timeless singularity lies some 12 billion years “away”. It may represent the point at which our universe of three spatial dimensions and one dimension of time intersects some other domain which may or may not have time-like properties.

In any case, there is nowhere where the universe does not exist. It has never not existed. You must divest yourself of the notion that time carries on past either “end” of this universe.

111

There is the ‘where does everything come from’ question which seems to plague this thread with what I view as useless arguements. I think the more logical line of reasoning is to argue not why of the universe, but why of the belief in god, and the one eternal questions that has plagued the most brilliant of human minds in history - ‘what is the meaning of life’, and ‘what comes after life’.

First, to you believers, I would like to say that it’s not a waste of time to continue believing in god, even if one does not exist, from the point of view of the arguement that I will present shortly… unless you plan to activate your telomerese activation mechanism in the near future, in which case - well, you’ve guessed it! it was all a waste of time! Because YOU dont NEED god, and he or she or it or nothing, doesnt NEED you!

So, is there a god? It’s not possible to prove, nor disprove the actual existance of what is believed to be god. Is there an all powerful and eternal presense out there who ‘created’ everything? How do you prove this? Logically, it’s easy to prove that there IS something but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove the opposite if the premesis that ‘our knowledge is limitted’ is accepted.

However, if I’m not wrong, most religions that insist on the existance of god fortell of consequences after the death of a being. I would ask why? How about if there ARE no consequences. How about if there IS no MEANING to life? Then we have limited time to live and do what we want… because life is limited. Right? This would be a huge cause of anarchy in this world. From a logical point of view, it’s something like ‘Do whatever you want within your next 80-100 years (from birth) or you get no second chances.’ From a psychological one, well… how do I explain this… you NEED god to exist so that your life means something (afterlife thing).

Our wise ancestors created this entity god, or the belief of, to fulfil the psychological needs of the public, the political needs of the greedy, and to prevent the self-extinction of the homo sapien species. The hypothetical long searched (and now proven) ‘elixer of life’ would have ended this particular arguement a thousand years ago.

Let’s say that you had an activated telomerese mechanism. Then YOU would not NEED god. Because YOU would not DIE unless YOU WANTED to. Then you wouldn’t be worrying about the after-life all the time and be so psychologically nervous. Who CARES what happens in the afterlife if you dont DIE?

So my answer to this particular question… is there a god? It doesnt matter! If you intend on activating your telomerase glads :expressionless: you dont need it, even if it exists. If you dont, then it’s better for your mental sanity to believe in it. Simple as that…

112

Everyone should copy-paste this thread into notepad, do a replace-all on “God” to “Cucumber” and then read the result.

It’s the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument all over again, but IMO it’s more effective.

113

I’ve always wondered how many of you guys can stand on the head of a pin - care to shed a little light on that one?
With reference to the OP - it is a question that mankind is very unlikely to be able to answer emphatically.

Thus we are left with our beliefs. Mine is that the existence of a god or gods is most unlikely - for it to be so would be to imply that our entire understanding of the physical Universe, the laws that govern it and of logical thought are incorrect. That is not something I personally am prepared to accept without at least some evidence because these things serve us so well in the real, practical world. Unfortunately all available evidence on the subject appears to point to a typically flawed human hypothesis that becomes more convoluted, and less convincing, the more obvious the flaws become.

114

Actually, that’s not quite true. A lot of religious laws were based on (what was unknown to the public then) scientifically provable hazards to the survival of the homo sapien species. It was a neccessity in times of ignorance. For example, sex before marriage and all the rest of the sexual stuff had to do with quarantining of sexual transmitted diseases, which were thought to be punishment from god for commiting adultery and stuff. Forbidding murder, it’s easy to see the reasoning of this. Theft? prevent anarchy and chaos taking over… etc. All practical reasons for belief in god. There’s one more… it keeps the public quiet. All in all… VERY PRACTICAL for the ignorant society of the dark ages and before. I’m sure the wise men of the past came up with using ‘god’ for political reasons more than anything else, because it’s pretty hard to keep the head honcho position in a chaotic world.

115

jkim, I look at it a different way. I don’t see early societies’ prohibitions against adultery, theft, etc., as religious laws, as much as community laws. They were of course incorporated into what they believed they were ordered by the gods to do. But the laws themselves can be looked at as one form of evolution. Start with a bunch of small societies with different sets of community laws. Those that adopt some laws will be less likely to survive than those that adopt other sets, so after hundreds of generations, the ones left surviving are those that chose laws that gave them the best survival advantage.

It also sounds likely that the reason religion is so important to many people, is that we have evolved a brain that needs to be religious. People who would hand power over to the village shaman were more likely to live in harmony with each other, instead of infighting, so were more likely to have a successful community, and therefore to survive.

116

That may or may not be true. However, I was addressing the OP which asks if there is a god, not about the roots of religious laws and practice. I don’t see that the discussion of which came first, gods or religion, is really relevant unless you are arguing that religion is evidence of the existence of god, which you are not.

I’m not quite sure what part of my post you consider to be incorrect but I stand by my view that the available evidence strongly indicates that the concept of god is a product of the fertile human imagination.

117

Absolutely. I agree with you. We needed god to exist, so we created it. That was the main thing about my post. However…

if it was so drastic as to imply that our entire (and entire is a very strong word, hence my wording ‘not quite true’ - I never said it was absolutely wrong…) understanding of the physical Universe was a load of bullock, then I dont really think it would have survived into modern age. It uses part truths (in the form of religious laws - forbidding scientific heath hazards) together with falsities (that the reason for the forbidding is because god is gonna punish you) to create god and a religion centered on this diety. Using part truths, you get a non-entire falsity. Get where I was objecting? Yes, I know… very small thing… very nitty gritty… :slight_smile: anyway enjoy.

118

Although I’m no expert on the matter of history, as far as I know, most ancient societies, whether they survived or not, had a form of religion that governed the people. Whether it involved a god is a different matter. However, I believe that the need for a religion stems not from survival needs and the likeliness of survival if the leader was a shaman (which is the part that I really really disagree with), but from the knowledge of death, and the curiosity for what comes after…

Many a culture has survived with non-religious 'leader’s, and many more have died with religious ones. If i’m not wrong, the village shaman of successful societies were the ‘doctor’ equivalent of current times, not the ‘president’ equivalent, and the true leaders were fighters who had enough charisma to gather the people.

119

This is a very silly argument. We don’t kill ourselves because we possess an instinct for survival. That has absolutely no bearing on whether a Magical Man created the universe.

120

OK, I think we are agreed on the likelihood that the initial concept of god or gods was a human creation.

I accept your nitpick of the use of the word ‘entire’ seeing as you put it so nicely. As I normally shy away from the use of absolutes I feel I should respond. Of course if you could provide one example where the proven existence of a god did not invalidate one aspect of our understanding of the physical universe then you would indeed be correct. I guess it depends on your definition of god.

Indulge me by dropping any consideration of religious laws and practices for a moment.
Consider what the absolute, incontrovertible proven existence of a god would mean…

It doesn’t even have to be an omnipresent, omnipotent nebulous concept that somehow willed the physical universe into existence, a minor deity will do. Any god worthy of the name supposedly exists, at least part time, in an immaterial, ‘spirit’ world, that we have no access to or knowledge of except when we die (maybe) or from stories that may or may not be works of fiction. A common characteristic of gods seems to be a sentient being that exists in an intangible state while having the ability to manipulate the course of events in the physical world. (S)he can summon powers and influence our material world on a whim, flashing around the odd lightning bolt, answering prayers, scaring the willies out of believers, that sort of thing. Oh yeah, without leaving any real, scientific evidence.

How would that proven existence not change our complete understanding of the physical universe and the laws that govern it? How would it not challenge our understanding of the principle of cause and effect that underpins basic logic? Imagine the text book rewrites … E=mc^2 (except when Thor gets really mad, then E=mc^3).

Seriously, if not ‘entire’… can I get away with ‘pretty-bloody-drastic’ ?