Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    Why? God created, and exists outside of, time and is therefore not affected by it. The problem you posed is only applicable to a material being, not a transcendent being that exists in neither time nor space

    And what caused Big Bang, when according to the laws of physics and the conservation of mass, there would need to be some source of energy to start the Big Bang? What was this force?
    "God created, and exists outside of, time and is therefore not affected by it." That's just an assertion , what makes you believe that? You can't have something that exists outside of time and space (or maybe you can, maybe science will find something that exists outside of time and space, some sort of weird matter or something, but it (almost certainly) won't be an intelligent being like the god of any religion)

    As for what caused the Big Bang, science hasn't found out yet. It may be decades or even centuries until it does, and we as a species may be wiped out long before then, but just making up some sort of god because you can't explain it any other way is stupid.

    (Original post by JM999)
    Also, what do you believe about objective morality?We all believe (or should believe) that killing 6 million Jews during World War II was morally wrong. However, if the Nazis had successfully taken over Europe and convinced us that it was ok to commit this genocide, would it still be morally wrong?
    We have evolved a system of morality to benefit us as a species of social primate. I think there are certain ideas that are ingrained in us as part of our evolutionary heritage. And besides, different cultures and different points in time had different ideas of what counts as murder and what is morally wrong. For example, a few hundreds of years ago, slavery was considered acceptable and in the future who knows what our opinions on things like killing intelligent animals will be. Maybe in a few hundred years we will look at the mass slaughter of animals for food similarly to how we look at the Nazi genocide.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    If there is a god why did he give the bullies at my school free will to make my life absolute hell, yes hell, for 5 years?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well clearly if there is a God he doesn't give a **** about you.
    And also, what kind of a person punishes people by making them burn in eternity for not believing in them. I would not be as cruel as that, if someone came up to me and told me they didn't believe in me and they weren't going to devote their entire life to worshiping me and living in fear of me, I would not make them burn in Hell. Therefore, I am a nicer person that God.

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    "God created, and exists outside of, time and is therefore not affected by it." That's just an assertion , what makes you believe that? You can't have something that exists outside of time and space (or maybe you can, maybe science will find something that exists outside of time and space, some sort of weird matter or something, but it (almost certainly) won't be an intelligent being like the god of any religion)

    As for what caused the Big Bang, science hasn't found out yet. It may be decades or even centuries until it does, and we as a species may be wiped out long before then, but just making up some sort of god because you can't explain it any other way is stupid.
    .
    Why is it less plausible to believe that there is an entity existing outside of time and space, defying the laws of physics, than to believe that the Big Bang happened spontaneously, for no reason, again defying the laws of physics?

    (Original post by TheBirder)
    " We have evolved a system of morality to benefit us as a species of social primate. I think there are certain ideas that are ingrained in us as part of our evolutionary heritage. And besides, different cultures and different points in time had different ideas of what counts as murder and what is morally wrong. For example, a few hundreds of years ago, slavery was considered acceptable and in the future who knows what our opinions on things like killing intelligent animals will be. Maybe in a few hundred years we will look at the mass slaughter of animals for food similarly to how we look at the Nazi genocide.
    So you don't believe that there was anything objectively wrong with killing 6 million innocent people?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    Why is it less plausible to believe that there is an entity existing outside of time and space, defying the laws of physics, than to believe that the Big Bang happened spontaneously, for no reason, again defying the laws of physics?
    Looking at it scientifically, everything like this starts from something small or less complex and becomes gradually more complex. Evolution, the development of a cell, the growth of an animal from embryo, etc. I'm fairly certain that this will be true with what started the universe. Using some sort of god hypothesis implies that you started with the most complex thing possible which then created something relatively simple. However you look at it, a creator has to be more complex than the thing that it's creating. That idea is what makes the god hypothesis far less plausible.

    Also, whatever started the universe didn't defy the laws of physics, you can't defy the laws of physics. It may not be within what we currently understand the laws of physics to be, but in that case they're wrong. I'm also not an expert in quantum mechanics so I'm not going to try and explain it, but I daresay neither are you.

    (Original post by JM999)
    So you don't believe that there was anything objectively wrong with killing 6 million innocent people?
    Of course I believe there was something (a lot) wrong with killing 6 million innocent people. I have a sense of right and wrong that is built inside me from an evolutionary heritage. If we didn't have this idea, then we would not have functioned in the distant past as a social species, then you have ideas of survival of the fittest where the tribes which had a sense of morals functioned better together and survived, out competing those that didn't.
    I will however say that those morals do change over time, cannibalism of people from other tribes was once a beneficial thing for people to believe in, however that is no longer a beneficial thing for people to do so it is now a very rare practice.

    If by objective, what you mean is this definition: "Existing independent of or external to the mind" then no I do not, we don't have any sense of morals outside of our minds, but I would suggest that morals from within are more powerful than those put on us from some outside source.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    ...could we not therefore also say, God is false because there is no proof of it?

    Be careful with your wording mate, your arguments are bad enough I wouldn't want you to set yourself up for complete failure.
    What about miracles or religious experiences- surely they are evidences to show God exists as it is a direct encounter with the divine. Miracles, by pure definition, is something that breaks the law of science and makes you think only God must have done it. How can something so psychologically, physically, mentally so overwhelming be deemed to be as being an induced experienced. That's why philosophers like William James, Fredrich Schleiermacher and Rudolf Otto all give convincing arguments as to why religious experience prove that God exists.

    My arguments are supported by prominent philosophers so I wouldn't count them to be amazingly awful.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    There is a hell of a lot more proof for evolution than there is for all religions combined.
    That's because there is no proof for any religion but lots of proof for evolution. Your statement is false.
    Evolution ultimately just talks about how sentient beings evolve to biologically fit in their environment. But, how can we possibly know when we haven't experienced ourselves evolving to fit in our environments. Scientists haven't seen biological organisms evolve to fit in their environment so how can the 'theory' of evolution be applicable to the universe when it's entirely flawed.

    Our ancestors haven't withdrawn evolution and do you honestly believe that we evolved from monkeys- then why are there still some monkeys here surely they would have died out as 'the survival of the fittest' ensures the stronger beings survive.

    The most obvious thing, as I point out over and over again which you love to ignore, that all religions have in common is that they acknowledge that there is a designer of the world. Surely, this validates my point, that there is a designer of the world. Your view of the nature of the designer of the world is different from mine and I respect that. But, how can you ignore how some people have religious experiences whether it be mystic or a miracle or voices and not regard there ever being a God.

    The design argument, out of all argument, is rather strong as the argument does not rely upon fixed definitions that we must accept thus we don't focus on trying to define 'God' and lose sight of the obvious evidence. It provides us clear examples of design and we don't ever try to doubt it. All I'm trying to tell you is that this argument proves there is a designer of the world and it's not like I'm forcing you to acknowledge God is all loving, all-powerful and all-knowing just that there is a designer of the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    What about miracles or religious experiences- surely they are evidences to show God exists as it is a direct encounter with the divine. Miracles, by pure definition, is something that breaks the law of science and makes you think only God must have done it. How can something so psychologically, physically, mentally so overwhelming be deemed to be as being an induced experienced. That's why philosophers like William James, Fredrich Schleiermacher and Rudolf Otto all give convincing arguments as to why religious experience prove that God exists.My arguments are supported by prominent philosophers so I wouldn't count them to be amazingly awful.
    What miracles or religious experiences? B*llshit. NO ONE has ever given a convincing argument to prove god exists. Amazingly awful sounds about right to me.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    If there is a god why did he give the bullies at my school free will to make my life absolute hell, yes hell, for 5 years?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because they have free will and so do you. Irenaeus states that God gave us free will to develop our qualities such as compassion, courage and so forth. If God intervened , according to John Hick, then this would lead to a counter factual hypothesis in the basis that we wouldn't be able to individually develop our qualities as we would keep on relying on God to help us. We would have that ideology that 'It's fine that I didn't revise because God will help me by giving me the answers"- like what honest goods would that do. We need the free will to develop those qualities and show our benevolence to God. Those bullies at your school are ********s, they just feel the need to pick on someone but the fact is those bullies help you think. It makes you realise what type of people you want to keep contact, people who I should ignore etc.

    We can't just disregard God's existence because the way our life is. God is our creator and the designer of the world. He wants to test us and he can't do that by always helping us.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Evolution ultimately just talks about how sentient beings evolve to biologically fit in their environment. But, how can we possibly know when we haven't experienced ourselves evolving to fit in our environments. Scientists haven't seen biological organisms evolve to fit in their environment so how can the 'theory' of evolution be applicable to the universe when it's entirely flawed.
    Scientists *have* seen biological organisms evolve to fit their environment. Lets just take a random example, the evolution of whales. I could make myself seem clever by using complex scientific names, but I will just stick to simple english for this explanation. Whales began as kind of dog-like organism that often hunted or scavenged for food on the coast. Gradually, these organisms began to do more and more swimming to get their food, beginning to slowly, over millions of years, develop more powerful tails, legs becoming less suited for running and more suited for swimming, bones slowly, over hundreds of generations, changing shape, and gradually becoming more and more whale like and less and less dog like.
    Here's a helpful graphic: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../whale_evo.jpg

    We can see that this has happened because we have fossils of each stage which we can date with the use of the rock strata, and whales also have vestigial limbs. Let me know if you want more proof, more details, or more explanation.

    (Original post by Defraction)
    Our ancestors haven't withdrawn evolution and do you honestly believe that we evolved from monkeys- then why are there still some monkeys here surely they would have died out as 'the survival of the fittest' ensures the stronger beings survive.
    Whenever people use this point, it shows the unbelievable ignorance and stupidity that creationists have. We did not evolve from monkeys, we share a common ancestor with primates!!!! Each species of primate fits a different ecological niche and is adapted for that ecological niche. Absolutely survival of the fittest ensures that the strongest beings survive, that's why the ancient Homos are now all extinct and we still survive. Our closest relatives are of course chimpanzees, however we did not evolve from them. People often refer to them as our 'cousins' you share a common ancestor with your cousins, you are not directly descended from them (unless there's been a lot of incest in your family.) To be honest, your use of this ridiculous, in infantile, ignorant point has really annoyed me.

    (Original post by Defraction)
    The most obvious thing, as I point out over and over again which you love to ignore, that all religions have in common is that they acknowledge that there is a designer of the world. Surely, this validates my point, that there is a designer of the world. Your view of the nature of the designer of the world is different from mine and I respect that. But, how can you ignore how some people have religious experiences whether it be mystic or a miracle or voices and not regard there ever being a God.
    You have not pointed this out before, or if you did I missed it because I was so infuriated with your ignorance on evolution.
    All religions having these same sort of beliefs does not prove your point. If anything, it proves my point in that humans biologically all want an answer to the meaning of life the universe and everything, and humans will make up an answer in the only way they can - a designer. A designer is just as suitable an explanation as the number 42.
    I ignore religious experiences because humans have things called dreams, hallucinations, visions, delirious fevered imaginations. Apophenia is something that people do a lot, Wikipedia defines it as "the human tendency to perceive meaningful patterns within random data."
    (Original post by Defraction)
    The design argument, out of all argument, is rather strong as the argument does not rely upon fixed definitions that we must accept thus we don't focus on trying to define 'God' and lose sight of the obvious evidence. It provides us clear examples of design and we don't ever try to doubt it. All I'm trying to tell you is that this argument proves there is a designer of the world and it's not like I'm forcing you to acknowledge God is all loving, all-powerful and all-knowing just that there is a designer of the world.
    The design argument is an absolutely terrible argument. It is inadequate, illogical, moronic, and doesn't prove anything at all. There is no obvious evidence, in fact, there is no evidence at all. Show me some. I don't see what point you're making at all in this last paragraph actually.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Because they have free will and so do you. Irenaeus states that God gave us free will to develop our qualities such as compassion, courage and so forth. If God intervened , according to John Hick, then this would lead to a counter factual hypothesis in the basis that we wouldn't be able to individually develop our qualities as we would keep on relying on God to help us. We would have that ideology that 'It's fine that I didn't revise because God will help me by giving me the answers"- like what honest goods would that do. We need the free will to develop those qualities and show our benevolence to God. Those bullies at your school are ********s, they just feel the need to pick on someone but the fact is those bullies help you think. It makes you realise what type of people you want to keep contact, people who I should ignore etc.

    We can't just disregard God's existence because the way our life is. God is our creator and the designer of the world. He wants to test us and he can't do that by always helping us.
    But surely God already knows how anyone will behave in all possible situations?
    Why does he need, or want, to test us?

    I have left this point short, because you seem to ignore it when I include it in a long post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Looking at it scientifically, everything like this starts from something small or less complex and becomes gradually more complex. Evolution, the development of a cell, the growth of an animal from embryo, etc. I'm fairly certain that this will be true with what started the universe.
    .
    At some point, then, there must have been something created/developed from nothing, from which everything else developed. To what do you credit the existence of this first, least complex entity if not a creator.
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Of course I believe there was something (a lot) wrong with killing 6 million innocent people. I have a sense of right and wrong that is built inside me from an evolutionary heritage. If we didn't have this idea, then we would not have functioned in the distant past as a social species, then you have ideas of survival of the fittest where the tribes which had a sense of morals functioned better together and survived, out competing those that didn't.I will however say that those morals do change over time, cannibalism of people from other tribes was once a beneficial thing for people to believe in, however that is no longer a beneficial thing for people to do so it is now a very rare practice.If by objective, what you mean is this definition: "Existing independent of or external to the mind" then no I do not, we don't have any sense of morals outside of our minds, but I would suggest that morals from within are more powerful than those put on us from some outside source.
    How would one have evolved this sense of right and wrong?
    Having morals gives no help in surviving, and may often be a hindrance. The example you brought, of cannibalism, is one such case. When food supplies are low, it is logical that cannibalism should happen, if one looks at the situation amorally. It may enable 75 people to live instead of 100 dying of starvation.
    And if having a sense of morals is indeed as beneficial as you ascertain it to be, then why have no other species developed it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    At some point, then, there must have been something created/developed from nothing, from which everything else developed. To what do you credit the existence of this first, least complex entity if not a creator.
    My point is that we don't know yet as a species, but I have no doubt that we will find out eventually. Science hasn't found out everything yet.

    (Original post by JM999)
    How would one have evolved this sense of right and wrong?
    To allow us to survive as a social species that lives in groups. If we didn't have that, we wouldn't be able to function in groups (many animals can't) and that would hinder our survival. (sorry, I misread or question as 'why' at first. As for how, the same way as anything else that we've evolved, through natural selection and survival of the fittest. And I wouldn't be surprised if sexual selection played a major part in that too.

    (Original post by JM999)
    Having morals gives no help in surviving, and may often be a hindrance. The example you brought, of cannibalism, is one such case. When food supplies are low, it is logical that cannibalism should happen, if one looks at the situation amorally. It may enable 75 people to live instead of 100 dying of starvation.
    And if having a sense of morals is indeed as beneficial as you ascertain it to be, then why have no other species developed it?
    It does help us in surviving, see above.
    Yes, and when food supplies are low cannibalism does happen. I was watching a documentary the other day about the survivors of a plane crash eating the other dead people to survive. However, people don't think logically and say 'well the fattest quarter of this group needs to die to let the majority survive. That includes me? Oh well, that's the logical thing to do'. People focus on their own survival first, but when there is enough food, then this evolved sense of morals benefits us, because we can function as a society.
    As for your final questions, I do believe other species have a sense of morals. The other higher primates certainly do, and I'd argue many species that live in groups such as elephants or cetaceans do have morals. Probably not to the same level that humans do, and I'd suggest that's why humans rule the world and not some other species.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    My point is that we don't know yet as a species, but I have no doubt that we will find out eventually. Science hasn't found out everything yet.
    If science does unequivocally find out, then I can agree with you. Until then, I'm happy with my current beliefs.



    (Original post by TheBirder)
    As for how, the same way as anything else that we've evolved, through natural selection and survival of the fittest. And I wouldn't be surprised if sexual selection played a major part in that too.
    My point is, there must have been some basic moral code from which a more complex one evolved. From where did this moral code come?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    If science does unequivocally find out, then I can agree with you. Until then, I'm happy with my current beliefs.
    So... you acknowledge that your beliefs are just something made up that you can use in the interim until science works it out properly?

    (Original post by JM999)
    My point is, there must have been some basic moral code from which a more complex one evolved. From where did this moral code come?
    Why must there? It's quite simple really, the tribes where everyone lives in harmony survived, those where they didn't died out. What is required for a tribe of ancient people to live in harmony? Not murdering each other, not raping each other, not murdering each others' babies, sharing all of the food that everyone produces, caring for those that are sick, making sure everyone has enough food and water and shelter, etc.
    Of course this is extremely simplified, but it's the basic idea and it gets the point across.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    So... you acknowledge that your beliefs are just something made up that you can use in the interim until science works it out properly?
    No, I don't believe science will ever work anything out as there isn't anything to work out; God caused the Big Bang to happen.
    However, if science found the indisputable cause then I will have been proved wrong in my beliefs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Why must there? It's quite simple really, the tribes where everyone lives in harmony survived, those where they didn't died out. What is required for a tribe of ancient people to live in harmony? Not murdering each other, not raping each other, not murdering each others' babies, sharing all of the food that everyone produces, caring for those that are sick, making sure everyone has enough food and water and shelter, etc.
    Of course this is extremely simplified, but it's the basic idea and it gets the point across.
    You said before that everything starts from something small or less complex and becomes gradually more complex. This should be true with morals as well; there must have been some basic moral code from which a more complex one developed. Not murdering each other, etc. happens not because of morals but because they have no need to. No animal kills for no reason, they either kill for food or because they feel threatened.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    No, I don't believe science will ever work anything out as there isn't anything to work out; God caused the Big Bang to happen.
    However, if science found the indisputable cause then I will have been proved wrong in my beliefs.
    Why, or should I say, how, can you just blindly believe that God caused the Big Bang to happen?

    Why God? Why not the tooth fairy, or father Christmas, or me? How do you know that I didn't cause the big bang to happen in my previous life when I was God's butler, or something?
    I consider those all to be equally probably scenarios, and I don't know how anyone can disagree with the fact that those are all equally probable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There is something better than us not necessarily this over powering explicit god that can do anything.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    You said before that everything starts from something small or less complex and becomes gradually more complex. This should be true with morals as well; there must have been some basic moral code from which a more complex one developed. Not murdering each other, etc. happens not because of morals but because they have no need to. No animal kills for no reason, they either kill for food or because they feel threatened.
    Morals are not a tangible thing. They are electrical impulses sent between neurones in the brain.

    Now you say that no animal kills for no reason, but that's simply not true. Just look at domestic cats for example, they often kill mice or birds or things just for fun. And I don't know if you are including humans when you say animals, but humans kill for fun a lot.

    http://www.botswana.co.za/Botswana_W...g-for-fun.html (note that the 'flock of turtle' at the start refers to turtle doves)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBirder)
    Why, or should I say, how, can you just blindly believe that God caused the Big Bang to happen?

    Why God? Why not the tooth fairy, or father Christmas, or me? How do you know that I didn't cause the big bang to happen in my previous life when I was God's butler, or something?
    I consider those all to be equally probably scenarios, and I don't know how anyone can disagree with the fact that those are all equally probable.
    Something caused the Big Bang to happen. The fact that billions of people believe in the same entity is evidence to me that it was God who created the world rather that you or something else entirely. There is evidence within religion that makes it difficult to disprove. E.g in Judaism, from which Christianity (and arguably Islam) stem, the Jews were given the bible in the form of mass revelation. This means that 2-3 million people witnessed it. It would be impossible for someone to have made this event up centuries later and succeeded in convincing an entire nation that all that nation's ancestors witnessed such an event, yet nobody had heard of this event before.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 31, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.