Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delight)
    Just because there are things people cannot comprehend (our minds being finite and god being infinite) does not mean they have blind faith. It boils down to whether you believe the Bible is God's Word or not.

    By the way, the Big Bang can't be proven, as it can't be tested and on top of this has many flaws (ie some parts of the universe seeming to expand, while others seem shrink), yet many people believe it explains the origin of the universe (never mind the fact that there would have to be something to collide in order cause the explosion - where did that come from (if anyone says the collapse of a previous universe - where did that come from)
    If the big bang can't be proven, and the existence of God can't be proven, why can't people just say they don't know? No one knows how we got here, so why can't we just admit it and stop making up stories?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    Why do people believe it if it can't be proven? This is what bugs me about religion - blind faith.

    If I said I believed that my car is evolved from cheese, even though I can't prove it, I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously.
    Yes, but can prove that it didn't evolve from cheese, but they can't prove that God doesn't exist. Just because the idea of God may not make a great deal of sense to people at first hand, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Quantum fluctuations (yawn) and practically anything getting close to Planck length (bigger yawn) seem to go completely against common sense, and the concepts behind a singularity (ie. the beginning of the big bang before it reached Planck length, and black holes). We're quite sure that the Universe can't have existed for ever, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense for it to be like that anyway.

    As you say, it can't be proved either way, but I would argue that from our understanding of physics, and really just general reason, suggests that there was/is a god of some form that created the Universe. If we do manage to come up with a complete theory of everything, explaining how the Universe works at all scales, we still won't be any closer. Scientists may well end up with a beautifully simple, harmonious picture of our world where everything seems to explain everything else - equations almost going around in circles - with laws that truly give a picture of not only how the Universe came into existence, but also why it did as well. But even then, we won't really know why those rules dictate that things must happen in a particular way - there can clearly not be a reason for everything; at some point there has to be something that needs no cause, needs no prompting, no reasoning behind it, but simply just is. Yet everything we know of has a reason to exist, other than the Universe - in which case, does that not suggest that there is a God? When we speak of the Universe, we are really referring to the nature of space and time - why do they exist? Seen as everything "real" (matter, energy, etc) seems to have a cause involving something equally materialistic, can we not suppose that more abstract concepts like space and time should have an equally abstract, undefined quality behind their existence?

    The real faith is in choosing to believe there is still a god existing now, and that he is essentially a nice guy, or to devote oneself to a particular religion. God seems surprisingly logical to me.

    I'm vaguely Christian, by the way.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    So you're saying that everything has to be created by something, and that we don't know what created the universe so it must have been a god.

    Fair enough.

    ...So who created God?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    So you're saying that everything has to be created by something, and that we don't know what created the universe so it must have been a god.

    Fair enough.

    ...So who created God?
    Why does God have to be created? If he/she/it does exist doesn't it strike you that he is a supernatural being that is not in fact subject to the normal rules of nature, like "being created"

    I don't think that "amazing" is saying that because "we don't know what created the universe so it MUST have been a god" but is merely forwarding it as a possibility.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trousers)
    So you're saying that everything has to be created by something, and that we don't know what created the universe so it must have been a god.

    Fair enough.

    ...So who created God?
    No. As I said, there MUST be something that exists for no logical reason at all, and no reason or meaning behind it. There may well be some logical, scientific reason for the Universe (or rather, this particular Universe) to exist, but there must be something - whether that's the universe, some network of universes, or just some kind of universal law(s) of Physics that presides over everything - that has no determined cause whatsoever, and it isn't a matter of "we don't know what created this", it's a "either this exists just 'because' it exists, or it was created by some kind of supernatural being that is governed by nothing". So it was either created by God, or it wasn't created at all, and has always been. Now neither of those possibilities make a great deal of sense, but one of them must be true; personally I find the concept of some kind of supernatural being easier to accept, given that everything other than space and time seem to have a reason to exist, therefore it is space-time that has either existed forever or been created by God - yet we know time to be finite, and the cosmological clock has not been ticking forever. I appreciate my reasons for God existing are a little scrambled up, but I hope you can see my reasoning in supposing something has either existed forever or been created by God - in which case at least, why not? The idea of God is certainly a reasonable possibility.

    Now, I do not think there is any logical reason for God to be kind, or loving, or to have prepared any kind of afterlife for anyone, or even for Him to have continued to exist after the creation of the Universe. Although being a Christian, I should certainly have hope that he is!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't worry, christians are always contradicting themselves...and have no sound arguments to back up all these theories...no offence or anything, its just the way I see it!!xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pure_Honey)
    I wouldn't worry, christians are always contradicting themselves...and have no sound arguments to back up all these theories...no offence or anything, its just the way I see it!!xxx
    No they're not. Some Christians of different groups believe very different things to other groups of Christians, but individual Christians don't really contradict themselves. Religious people aren't necessarily stupid, and they don't claim to have any arguments to back up their "theory". If there were any arguments that conclusively proved the existance of God (or more particularly, their vision of God) then there wouldn't be any non-believers. Do you think they don't realise this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's all a great fairytale.

    Anyone believe in Humpty Dumpty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    Exactly, and that should apply to both religion and scientific theory.
    Don't be so silly. The scientific method is very different to that of simply having blind faith in your beliefs with no evidence to suggest that it is the truth.

    http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html
    http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html

    The scientific method states that ALL scientific hypothesis and theories must be falsifiable. If they are not falsifiable then it is simply not science. To state that a visible leprechaun lives in my toilet is scientific, because to fasify the statement all on has to do is to look inside the toilet. To state that an invisible leprechaun lives in my toilet is not scientific, because there is no way to disprove it. It is the same as saying that a tiny blue ant (that is so small it can not be seen with the naked eye and every time it is magnified it simply teleports away) is spying on me. It is a ridiculous sounding theory but it is no more ridiculous then the theory of god(s), as both are unfalsifiable.

    I am not stating here that god(s) do not exist, only that there is no rational reason to believe in them. You may aswell believe in the invisible leprechaun.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Sorry to be pedantic but as an atheist you shouldn't be confused. Maybe people who FOLLOW the religion should when they come across flaws, but for you since you don't believe in all this anyway, there should be no problem. Hence no confusion.
    He has bigger problems, proving the non-existence of God
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    God does exist. I was an atheist myself 3 years ago but I changed my mind when I prayed to God when I most needed Him and He helped me get throuh some rough time. I wanted to prove everthing as well, and reason everything. But since u r born, for example, u will have this 'inexplicable' love for your mother. When u grow up u start being able to explain why you lover her- she provides food, care, stability. Same thing with God- he provides for us and cares for us in a way that we cannot explain and shouldnt even attempt to-its not naivety, it's a limitation of understanding. God is neither a science nor a moral dilemma or ethics question-God just is and shouldn't be analysed. I wonder myself at times, when I see war and famine poverty, why is God doing this but I get no answer. At the end of the day all we have is God. I dont consider myself a slave of God, instead God is my Father and my friend. I am also Protestant by conviction and I dont give so much importance in Mary herself- she was the physical medium for Jesus to come to earth and sacrifise himself for the sins of people. Faith in God is not necessarily blind- all u have to do is open your eyes and where is goodness, God is there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    God does exist. I was an atheist myself 3 years ago but I changed my mind when I prayed to God when I most needed Him and He helped me get throuh some rough time. I wanted to prove everthing as well, and reason everything. But since u r born, for example, u will have this 'inexplicable' love for your mother. When u grow up u start being able to explain why you lover her- she provides food, care, stability. Same thing with God- he provides for us and cares for us in a way that we cannot explain and shouldnt even attempt to-its not naivety, it's a limitation of understanding. God is neither a science nor a moral dilemma or ethics question-God just is and shouldn't be analysed. I wonder myself at times, when I see war and famine poverty, why is God doing this but I get no answer. At the end of the day all we have is God. I dont consider myself a slave of God, instead God is my Father and my friend. I am also Protestant by conviction and I dont give so much importance in Mary herself- she was the physical medium for Jesus to come to earth and sacrifise himself for the sins of people. Faith in God is not necessarily blind- all u have to do is open your eyes and where is goodness, God is there
    All people need is hope. The idea of God is to help people fill in the gaps where they do not understand the "how/why" of something. Good idea to give people strength, but I am extremly suprised how many people follow this method.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ToshTrent)
    All people need is hope. The idea of God is to help people fill in the gaps where they do not understand the "how/why" of something. Good idea to give people strength, but I am extremly suprised how many people follow this method.
    yes God is hope! so what? is it wrong to have a source of strength? it works for me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How can any of you be so sure God doesn't exist. If you think you have it all figured out, map out your logic and you will see that something does not fit. God can not be proven not to exist, so far as we know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    I was an atheist myself 3 years ago but I changed my mind when I prayed to God when I most needed Him and He helped me get throuh some rough time.
    How exactly did God help you and why did you conclude that it was God and not chance that attributed to whatever fortune I assume you had?
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    But since u r born, for example, u will have this 'inexplicable' love for your mother. When u grow up u start being able to explain why you lover her- she provides food, care, stability. Same thing with God- he provides for us and cares for us in a way that we cannot explain and shouldnt even attempt to
    Love for your mother is not inexplicable - it is instinctive. It's fairly obvious why mothers care for thier offspring, because otherwise the offspring wouldn't survive. If they don't survive then the species would become extint. Through the process of natural selection, the environment chooses those who have adapted best to survival and these animals have more chance to reproduce and to pass on thier better genes to the next generation. The net effect is that mothers care for thier offspring instinctivly and the offspring learn to love thier mother through reward of food.

    There is fairly obvious evidence for a mother providing you with food and care - it is very easily observed. What evidence is there to suggest that there is a God doing the same thing? There is none. I am not trying to disprove God, I am simply suggest reasons for why it is irrational to believe in one.
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    At the end of the day all we have is God. I dont consider myself a slave of God, instead God is my Father and my friend
    Evidence to suggest this?
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    Faith in God is not necessarily blind- all u have to do is open your eyes and where is goodness, God is there
    Goodness does not suggest presence of a God. There is not even evidence to suggest that goodness actually exists outside of the human mind.

    Consider a smoking ban on a restaurant. Is it really true that you shouldn't smoke in the restaurant? If we consider the semantics of this argument, then you could say that YES it is wrong to smoke in the restaurant, relative to the managers judgement (the ban), but only relative to his judgement. There is no evidence to suggest that is absolutely wrong (universally) to smoke in the restaurant, and to state that it is simply because of one restaurant managers definition of wrong is insanly irrational, which most people would agree with methinks (which is why I picked this example). Where is the evidence to suggest that the manager of the restaurant is correct?

    The same applies for good, bad, wrong, right evil etc. If the definition of good is to walk into your kitchen then it is indeed good to walk into your kitchen, but only relative to that definition. To say that anything is good in an absolute sense is irrational.

    The definition of cruel is to inflict pain, so yes inflicting pain is cruel. However, why is it that humans typically use this as a negative classification? It is a bad thing to be cruel, but what evidence is there to suggest this? Sure, if I ripped the skin off a pig, monkey or even a human, I am cruel, but who is the judge of whether this is good or bad (or even neither good nor bad)? Just because the majority of the world is in agreement that it is bad doesn't mean that they're correct, because they is still absolutely no evidence supporting it.

    People should just try to think outside of the box that society puts them into.

    Good, bad, right, wrong etc are not definied by the universe, they are defined by humans. There is no evidence to suggest that any human is correct so it is irrational to believe any definition.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DivideByZero)
    The same applies for good, bad, wrong, right evil etc. If the definition of good is to walk into your kitchen then it is indeed good to walk into your kitchen, but only relative to that definition. To say that anything is good in an absolute sense is irrational.

    The definition of cruel is to inflict pain, so yes inflicting pain is cruel. However, why is it that humans typically use this as a negative classification? It is a bad thing to be cruel, but what evidence is there to suggest this? Sure, if I ripped the skin off a pig, monkey or even a human, I am cruel, but who is the judge of whether this is good or bad (or even neither good nor bad)? Just because the majority of the world is in agreement that it is bad doesn't mean that they're correct, because they is still absolutely no evidence supporting it.

    People should just try to think outside of the box that society puts them into.

    Good, bad, right, wrong etc are not definied by the universe, they are defined by humans. There is no evidence to suggest that any human is correct so it is irrational to believe any definition.
    An interesting moral viewpoints, however I feel you are avoiding the questions about morality. In part I agree, could good and bad exist indepedant of having humans their to state what is 'good' or 'bad'? Well, this is a 'seeing-as' issue, as we cannot have an objective look at the world without humans etc.

    You use the example of cruetly, which we claim to be a 'bad' action (and nearly universally agreed). So, X hits Y, could this in our world be interperted as a 'good' action in anyway? I agree in a possible world X hitting Y could be good and therefore good must be contingent. However, the reason we state something as bad is because of what the action entails - this is pain, suffering etc etc and these are inherant values within Humans that we think are disgusting. So, in our world we are able to state things as 'good' or 'bad' and we evidence to suugest so, these being the fact an ordinary human has inherient morals (in part) and that the consquences can be seen as bad. Therefore, although we can't be proved conclusively correct, the evidence balances within the favour of certain actions being 'good' or 'bad'. I would like you to present how in our world the goodness of X hitting Y can be justified?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    An interesting moral viewpoints, however I feel you are avoiding the questions about morality. In part I agree, could good and bad exist indepedant of having humans their to state what is 'good' or 'bad'? Well, this is a 'seeing-as' issue, as we cannot have an objective look at the world without humans etc.

    You use the example of cruetly, which we claim to be a 'bad' action (and nearly universally agreed). So, X hits Y, could this in our world be interperted as a 'good' action in anyway? I agree in a possible world X hitting Y could be good and therefore good must be contingent. However, the reason we state something as bad is because of what the action entails - this is pain, suffering etc etc and these are inherant values within Humans that we think are disgusting. So, in our world we are able to state things as 'good' or 'bad' and we evidence to suugest so, these being the fact an ordinary human has inherient morals (in part) and that the consquences can be seen as bad. Therefore, although we can't be proved conclusively correct, the evidence balances within the favour of certain actions being 'good' or 'bad'. I would like you to present how in our world the goodness of X hitting Y can be justified?
    I tried to edit my post above to include this even before I saw this post, but the server was too busy so it didn't seem to work

    My theory as to why humans believe in good, bad, right and wrong is largely because of emotive instincts, again. Most people use the logic that something is wrong because you wouldn't like it done to you. Torture is wrong, for example, because you wouldn't like it done to you. That is correct, I wouldn't like somebody torturing me, so does this therefore suggest that it is wrong? No, it is due to pain instinct which is inherent in me because of evolution. Animals feel pain because it teaches them to stay away from danger, increasing thier survival chances and that is all. Instincts are not there to tell us truths about the universe, and tell us what is right and what is wrong, they are there simply to keep us alive. Even if instincts have to lie to you in order to keep you alive then they will do just that, so we have no reason to trust our instincts even though we cannot ignore them. It is very tough to ignore your instincts, since they are your very programming (with nature being the programmer), but you do not have to trust that they are telling you the truth.

    For example, imagine if you wanted to measure the length of a line drawn on a piece of paper. You would get a measuring ruler and simply measure it. But what is the ruler was not correct? What if the ruler was lying, then you would measure the line incorrectly also. We do have some rational reason to trust the ruler, since it is designed to be accurate and that is how the company makes thier money off the product, but to trust instincts is completly blind faith since there is no evidence to suggest that they are telling you the truth at all. Like I say, they are there to keep you alive, not to give you a moral perspective.

    You say that humans have inherent morals, but I say they have inherent instincts. They are not morals, they are just there as a survival technique.

    Now, you asked me to justify the goodness of X hitting Y, which I cannot do at all. That is exactly like trying to justify that it is bad. My point was not that 'murder is not wrong, therefore it is right'. I typically find it easier to believe that murder is niether right nor wrong.

    For example, 'I believe God does not exist' is not the same as 'I do not believe in God', athough this is accepted as so by many people. The first is a belief of absense but the second is an absense of belief. What, for example, do you call a new born baby? Do they 'believe God does not exist'? I would say no, but it IS accurate to say that they 'do not believe in God', because technically it is true.

    I am an agnostic. I do not believe in God, but this is not that I believe God does not exist. I have an absense of all belief on the matter, not belief of absense.

    I am not saying that 'it is GOOD to be cruel because I do not believe that it is bad', because that is just as illogical to me as saying that it is bad to be cruel. I hope I made that point clear because it is a little hard to explain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    Well then, the big bang is not scientific then, because it cannot be observed. As a general statement, if you decide not to believe in God then you are forced to find a natural way for the universe to form, and big bang is the main atheistic theory.

    I like to think that this universe is structurally similar to the Matrix, in that it is a created world within a larger world. (I mean the Matrix when it was good, before the nonsensical sequels.) The architect is God, and he has power over this world in the same way that I have power over a computer game, by using console commands to get my way. Those within the Matrix cannot completely understand the nature of the universe outside, like someone who spent all their life in a prison cell playing Tetris has little understanding of Formula One racing.

    That's a rambling reply, but it's 3am where I am.
    The big bang theory is not scientific - that's correct. Stephen Hawking has said over and over again that he is not a scientist. Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, which tries to follow the scientific method wherever possible, but obviously cannot when trying to explain certain phenomenon. It is much like the modern string theory, or M theory. Is it science or is it philosophy?

    It is also a very common misconception that the big bang is a theory about the creation of the universe. It's not, which may be suprising to all that think it is. All the big bang theory states is that the universe is expanding since time zero, where it was infinitesimally small and dense. It does not deal with how this universe got there in the first place.

    Stephen Hawking simply made the observation that the universe is expanding, and hypothesised that at time zero it must have been infinitesimally small - that's all. There is much observed data that is consistant with the big bang theory, and nobody has found anything which points to anything other than the big bang theory, but it is still not science as it cannot be tested since predicitions cannot be made from the theory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    DivideByZero: God is not a biology investigation where there is a fix set of variables. It's a matter of believing in God- it's not a contract and there are no conditions and warranties. There is no such thing as chance or luck- everything happens for a reason and something good will always come out of something bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by greenrevolt)
    everything happens for a reason and something good will always come out of something bad
    You have absolutely no reason to believe that. Like I say, belief in God is as irrational as a belief in cloaked alien vessels that are in an Earth orbit to spy on us. If you believe in God you may aswell believe in the aliens.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

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

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