Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED

jeff hammond

@unknownuser said:

... the tao which is basically what all other religions are built upon..

how did you come with that conclusion? all other religions?

i'm generalizing.. and i'm not trying to say the idea of the tao spread it's way through the world and certain groups of people took that idea and based their religion off it.. i'm saying the roots of religions start off the same.. it's just with the tao, it's understood that the more words you try to use to describe it, the further away you get from the truth.. with religions, it seems the more ideas/myths/descriptions/whatever you pile on top, the better/more believable/truer it becomes..

we don't have words to describe a lot of things in nature.. and attempts to wordify(?) it weakens and cheapens it.. then with religions, i think a lot of the words (such as those in the bible) started off as being written by people in an attempt to communicate, metaphorically, their thoughts/feelings to others.. then somewhere along the lines, people hearing these fictional tales starting believing them as truths — meanwhile missing out on the whole idea trying to be said in the first place.. then other people started adding other tales (many of whom probably did so for personal reasons (power/money/control).. and now, a few thousand years later, we have this stupid book that people are quoting as real, killing people over, using as a tool for power/money/control, arguing about etc... and it's all bs.. it's a stupid work of fiction that in it's current general interpretation, misses the point entirely..

and there's more than one version of these books.. the one you're quoting i assume is the quran.. same sht, different day.. but comparing those two makes the case of people missing the point/reading the words as fact/believing the words as truth etc then twisting them into the own bojangled interpretations and using them for motives of power/money/control..

in this country (u.s.) allah = devil.. osama bin laden = allah.. saddam hussein = allah.. brown people = allah... and we must kill allah for he is the devil threatening to ruin our beloved god...
and maybe that sounds harsh but it's straight up the truth of what most christians are able to be morphed into believing by our almighty savior george w bush et.al.. the u.s. govt has the support of the majority of our country regarding blowing up the middle east based on this alone..

and it works the other way too.. to most muslims, i'm the devil.. i'm the person threatening to overcome their almighty allah.. etc..

it's fooked.. i'm not even an ist, or an ian, or an ic, or what ever stupid label people need to put on others.. why can't i just be instead of be something?

@unknownuser said:

about those things. living or not. they do or response to their surrounding. with certain kind of laws or orders. i agree on that since the beginning. until today, i've never heard anything like a bee pursuing a degree in architecture or PhD in physics. even if they've been doing that "hives building" since thousands or millions of years ago, they're going nowhere else with that. so they just got some kind of that "blueprints" implanted in their being. they just do what they've "told" to do.

and the main difference between us human and those other things is most probably our high "free will" and "mental" capabilities combined.

huh?.. i was trying to make an analogy about you saying you won't stop believing in god until a computer suddenly creates itself (or whatever weirdness you were talking about).. i just don't get the thing about 'since man makes computers, there is a god' idea.. it makes no sense.. but hey, that's your story and you're sticking to it (which is pretty much why these discussions will never conclude.. we're an incredibly stubborn species)

@unknownuser said:

then, yes it seems we've come onto some sort of agreement there.
that there is "something" beyond all of these. you may call it mother nature, father nature, the jedi knight's force, tao, or whatever that is.
since i don't know and don't have any proof of what gender that "thing" would be, i might stick to know "it" by god.

no, we don't agree.. there is nothing 'beyond'.. nothing 'superior'.. no 'supreme being'..
in the same way i'm no more superior than, say, a cow or a speck of dust..

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

one of the problems with religion, as i see it, is that it's an attempt to describe what isn't know to us..

i don't know about electricity, nuclear things either. let alone cosmology. but that doesn't make me not to believe that electricity or nuclear things do exist.

not you as an individual.. you as a species.. and one of the benefits of us having a society is that we can figure these things out collectively.. you trust your fellow human beings that are, individually, interested enough in electricity to harness it and make it useful to you that you ,individually, don't have to worry about it..

@unknownuser said:

@unknownuser said:

.. and i think the reason why everyone locks onto god so hard is that it explains what happens after death.. death being the single greatest fear humans experience..

i might have different opinion or feeling towards that matter. since every living thing will eventually die. but falling from a cliff i might fear of. because there should be options before every possibilities to choose.

yeah, maybe there should be a choice and i bet if there really was, god wouldn't have been invented.. but we can't choose if we want to live or die.. our only choice is death
the whole good death/bad death thing is pretty much irrelevant..

@unknownuser said:

i have a little thing about that. you might consider it as just fairy tales, myths, etc. or you can give it a little thought.

@unknownuser said:

Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that....

you're absolutely right.. those words are a fairy tale.. tell me your own ideas and i'd be more inclined to listen but when you start telling me your misinterpretation of somebody else's ideas/metaphors, meanwhile missing their original idea then hey.. i don't care to hear it..

you might as well tell me that the universe's speed limit isn't the speed of light because you read about han solo going from galaxy A to galaxy B in 5 seconds.. i'm interested in the possibilities that we can travel faster than currently assumed (or even in other ways than pointA->pointB) but if you're going to base that discussion off a book of fiction then so what.. go talk to a trekkie about it or something..

brodie

@hieru said:

If you want to study anything objectively then there are common approaches to reasonig and deductive logic regardless of the subject, whether it's electricity, history or paranormal claims.

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

I don't understand your starting point. Why impose the limitation that if God did exist he must work within the material laws of physics? On the contrary wouldn't we presume that this God had created those laws and therefore MUST exist outside of them?

Your only caveat is that God might do something that SEEMS paranormal but only in that we've yet to comprehend the mechanism. What if that mechanism isn't comprehensible from a naturalistic standpoint though? What if it were simply an all powerful entity acting within the bounds of our natural world. It's at least conceivable isn't it? And yet you've ruled it out as a point of worldview.

-Brodie

irwanwr

actually i don't feel like i am interested to make more lines with this topic.
but, after reading some replies. i'd like to say a little more. but i doubt i can make it even half of the idea of communicating. let alone to reach understanding with my foreign language capabilities. i don't think to write in my own language would be a better idea either. so here we go again. although this is "pointless from the beginning". since no one here really are scientist in physics, philosophy, or any field of science. but just some of people who read some writings.

@alan fraser said:

And BTW quoting Tesla is pointless. Not seeing electricity is not remotely the same as not seeing God. Typical priestly deviousness. You can see electricity in action. It's results are entirely predictable and its mechanism perfectly understood. To say the same about God you'd have to be able to pray for a new car and get one, or pray for the recovery of a sick loved one and see them get better...every time...Poof! just like that...cause and effect.

now that would be a tool i'd like to have. just do anything that i want it to do.

god otherwise is not one of those things you can call a tool or plugin. that you may program it to do whatever you wish. what you wanted and described there is a tool.
to fulfill your needs and desires. god is not something that do whatever you wish him to do. if your father who lives overseas doesn't give you what you want, does that mean he doesn't exist? cause and effect? what about x-factor or any anomalies scientist admit? entirely predictable and perfectly understood mechanism?
say, if a tool or "plugin" doesn't gives us a result as it's expected to have, based on predictable mechanism perfectly understood, we should as good as just dump it. don't even think to have it tested again. to do more evaluation or research. it's just failed. drop it dead. no need for debugging.

common argument we'll see from those so called atheist usually.
their disappointment of god, and probably their religious teachers and leaders.

everything is material. can be measured, qualify and quantify.
quantify your soul. does it really there? qualify and quantify your mind, your feeling, etc. then. next you'll be saying manifestation of it. "electricity in action.." i can see god in action too if you say that. as if you are saying any government "is just fact that it is there merely exist" popping out of nowhere and running by itself.
if you tell me that a stone, element, planet or nuclear cores just popped out of nowhere, you are just like talking bs. the same way if i told you that i just got a car or a planet came out of nowhere for me in front of my door. even with infinite time were given for that thing to be.

so, whether you like it or not. atheist do have gods. those are science, materials, and their own desires and limits combined at least. those things seems responsible that drives atheist lives.

irwanwr

@hieru said:

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

assumption? i still remember when i was still in university that they told me to do research and write something to present it and later become thesis. thesis itself means

@unknownuser said:

the·sis (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

A proposition that is maintained by argument.

A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.

The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.

even any science start from a scratch of assumption, proposition, without proof. are you sure you know what you are talking about here?

irwanwr

@hieru said:

then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

everything in your world must be "materialistic" and "mechanical"?
well, bad news. your god so called science with any laws of physics etc, admit that it is not perfect. putting it mild.

@unknownuser said:

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.

The three areas of limitation are

Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.

Science does not mean "everything" to justify about "anything".

Hieru

@srx

@unknownuser said:

The same with God. Its manifestation is all around you, including the electricity.

Not in a tangible way that can be objectively measured. It comes down to the quality of the evidence.

Hieru

If you want to study anything objectively then there are common approaches to reasonig and deductive logic regardless of the subject, whether it's electricity, history or paranormal claims.

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate according to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

irwanwr

science is not the perfect tool or "plugin" to use when it comes to justify whether there is god or not. or even "did God create the universe".

i say that science failed for that matter.
it doesn't work as it's expected to be. with all of instruments or any given resources there are. as predictable comprehensively understood mechanism. cause and effect procedures. and there was obviously no "poof" and a conclusion as a result.

science failed. it's just a pile of craps with good packaging design.

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

Hieru

@unknownuser said:

On the contrary wouldn't we presume that this God had created those laws and therefore MUST exist outside of them?

You can't work according to any unfounded presumptions. We have to draw conclusions based on what the evidence tells us.

@unknownuser said:

What if that mechanism isn't comprehensible from a naturalistic standpoint though?

Until there is evidence that any phenomenon operates outside the naturalistic model of the universe, it's safe to presume (for the time being) that such a mechanism is highly implausible. Also, it's worth considering that any non-naturalistic phenomenon wouldn't be observable since our means of observation are limited by materialistic mechanisms. Consequently any supposed observation of a non-naturalistic phenomenon cannot be any such thing.

@unknownuser said:

What if it were simply an all powerful entity acting within the bounds of our natural world. It's at least conceivable isn't it? And yet you've ruled it out as a point of worldview

I haven't ruled it out. I merely see no evidence to support such an hypothesis and whilst admittedly conceivable as a possibility, the lack of supporting evidence suggests that it's highly unlikely.

I am however open to considering any compelling evidence that may come along in the future.

irwanwr

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

You are right as you can touch, smell, hear and taste if it exists.

didn't you read "the limitations of science" i posted above?
ok, let me correct that for you.

if you cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste it. it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

for an example. let's put it this way.
i cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste whatever that is the real you. does it mean that you do not exist?

your "limitations" does not mean that anything beyond "them" does not exist.

jeff hammond

@irwanwr said:

although this is "pointless from the beginning".

yeah, i'm pretty sure most of the people here enter this thread with that in mind.. it's a decent group of people around here and there's a history of these types of thread in which people disagree, sometimes very much so, but have no qualms about entering another thread to share ideas on a drawing technique or make jokes w/ each other etc.. i mean, i still like/respect Boo, brodie, srx, ely, etc regardless of us not seeing eye->eye on issues such as this.. [not really sure if i like that cornel dude though ].. oh, and i like you too.. you seem hyped on sketchup and curious/excited enough about it in the same way that brought most of the active members to scf.. so that's cool..
[not sure if others feel the same way but i imagine most here do.. and won't be holding grudges based on religious beliefs when it comes to future sketchup related discussions]

@irwanwr said:

Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

supernatural is a word created by man.. it basically means the same thing as god and a point that i've been trying to make earlier is that when man can't explain something then we have the tendency to assign a god to it..
i really don't think anything could be considered supernatural because if it happens then it's natural.. the fact that it might be unnatural to us just says we don't know everything about the universe.. maybe a better word would be super-normal or super-idk (beyond what we often see or know about)..

so while science may not be able to explain the supernatural (see above), it certainly can explain what's really going on therefore demoting the 'phenomena' from supernatural status to normal or neato! status..

and i think we've seen exactly that scenario over&over again throughout our history..

jeff hammond

@irwanwr said:

science failed. it's just a pile of craps with good packaging design.

i don't quite get the science vs. god thing anyway.. i guess the simple act of assigning the word 'science' to it (then further give it a definition) lessens the true meaning or packages it into something we can point a finger at or pit it in a thisVSthat scenario but it's not something to be worshiped in the way theists do their gods.. science just is.. it's just there

if you were dropped off on a deserted island as an infant and somehow managed to survive, you'd still experience/conduct science on a daily basis.. (if i do this, then that happens etc.. discovering fire and how you can use it to your advantage.. etc..)
but in that same scenario, i guarantee you wouldn't be talking about god as you are now..

you'd probably have your own version of god though (well, more likely than not, you'd have a whole bunch of gods..).. and i highly (highly!) doubt it would be the same version you are speaking of today.

irwanwr

@unknownuser said:

supernatural is a word created by man.. it basically means the same thing as god and a point that i've been trying to make earlier is that when man can't explain something then we have the tendency to assign a god to it..

well, those words are copy pasted from a website. there are other sites with more or less similar explanation. but that one looks a bit simpler with numbered list. it may be the conventional term or word to describe the matter.

actually when i saw this topic on the forum, i say to myself, "not another one".
it's like trying to explain to some people about the suitable tools for certain purposes.
like; philosophy, science, art, etc. (personally, i only consider those three as main tools, or say "plugins").

i have a book here back from long time ago, when i was still at high school before i went to univ. entitled "Science in Perspective" if translated. a good not too thick book actually. sort of compilation of some other writings. unfortunately this books is in my language. it talks about "science" itself. we need it since we have to prepare ourselves leaving school to go to univ. so, that's the reason i don't really like the topic. risky. as if something put before us and people in crowd bringing whatever tools they have. each of some may even doesn't really understand their own tools. am a bit lazy to interpret it and quote it.

i guess it's just a topic in a forum. wont makes me deal with any kind of graduation either

irwanwr

@unknownuser said:

you'd probably have your own version of god though (well, more likely than not, you'd have a whole bunch of gods..).. and i highly (highly!) doubt it would be the same version you are speaking of today.

i did actually have the same doubts. those were times when i still stick around with Karl Marx and his fellow bunch. we have also some "thinkers" here. some are total famous atheist, like one of them have his book "Madilog" so famous. it stands for materialism, dialectic and logic. i lost the book though. can't find it anymore here in this room. someone probably borrowed it and forgot (i hope) to return it.
those times are over for me now. personally.

irwanwr

Jeff, if you were talking about many gods in context with those translation. it doesn't.
any "us" words in the scripture (if that was what you mean) belong to god and his closest servant. i heard some people in the west call them archangels or something. even the new pagans do.

Alan Fraser

"Did God create the universe?"
How about drawing a line under this for Christmas? The answer is that you are at perfect liberty to believe He did...but there is no evidence to support that position; it is an article of faith.

I have no problem with faith. I've lived my life surrounded by it...and I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. People are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want if they think it helps them get through this existence and makes them a better person.
Personally, I don't need that motivation and regard it as an illusion...sometimes helpful...sometimes not. But that's just my opinion and is entirely subjective. I'm still going to enjoy Christmas though...sing carols, go to midnight mass, wish all my friends a joyous holiday.
Hypocrisy? probably...you're at perfectly liberty to think that also...but that's your opinion and it's just as subjective as mine. It's theatre and social interaction and cohesion. Organised religion has never been anything else...well, apart from a handy means of social control and a nice little moneyspinner (see TV Evangelism)

Factors such as 'love' are not evidence for the existence of God...and certainly not a precise Abrahamic one. My dog loves me...in a totally unreserved way; and by any definition of the word. Does that make him christian and bound for glory? Evidence is that which is normally understood as such...the kind of thing that would satisfy a forensic lab.

That is the only thing that does vaguely annoy me...when dyed-in-the-wool theists attempt to draw some kind of spurious equivalence between the proof for God and the proof for some scientific theory or another. There is no such equivalence and it's a totally bogus and dishonest practice to maintain that there is. Faith is faith; it's not subject to scientific probity; get over it. But that does not mean that science is a 'faith' or 'belief' or 'religion'.

Scientific theory entails:-
a) An understood process (maybe not always fully inderstood, as yet, but at least in a general sense.
b) A process which is predictable.
c) A process which is repeatable.
There is not one aspect of God that meets even one of these criteria; that's why belief is called Faith. He moves in mysterious ways...the very antithesis of scientific process.

There's nothing remotely 'subjective' about scientific theory. If there was, the electrons rushing through the CPU of the machine I'm typing this on could just as easily deliver me a burger and fries as the contents of this forum page. The quantum mechanics that precisely determine the function of that CPU are exactly the same quantum mechanics that point beyond any doubt to the fact of the Big Bang and the processes that followed in its wake.

Bill Wilson

@alan fraser said:

"Did God create the universe?"
How about drawing a line under this for Christmas? The answer is that you are at perfect liberty to believe He did...but there is no evidence to support that position; it is an article of faith.

I have no problem with faith. I've lived my life surrounded by it...and I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic. People are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want if they think it helps them get through this existence and makes them a better person.
Personally, I don't need that motivation and regard it as an illusion...sometimes helpful...sometimes not.
Thank you Alan, it is not often that I find a post that I agree with 100%, but yours hits it on the button.

I'm not very good at writing (typing) but I think a thank you to you for putting my thoughts into print is well worth the effort

Cheers and a very happy Xmas to all, Santa arrives here first but he should have a very good tan, the weather has been MINT. Agnostics are allowed to believe in Santa, after all we've got to believe in something.

Alan Fraser

You're very welcome, Bill. I'm glad there's at least one person that agrees with me.
Actually, this particular agnostic went one better than believing in Santa...he's just finished his stint being Santa on the local Rotary Chritmas float. The look of joy and wonder on the faces of the little kids; and the smiles on the faces of their mums and dads is what Christmas is all about...being nice to others and sparing a thought (and some cash or effort) for those less fortunate.

The people I really feel sorry for are those that are so materially deadened that they can spend a small fortune on illuminating their house, apparently leaving them so broke can't even spare a single penny for a charitable cause; or so worn out that they can't even drag their fat arse of the sofa as far as the front door. There might be some unknown mitigating circumstances of course, but if not, those are the true spiritually dead...whether they call themselves religious, agnostic or atheist. But that's a whole other topic.

michaliszissiou

@solo
Pete, santa an atheist?
The story of santa is interesting.
It's St Nicholas but became more complicated in the north countries
Became complicated in mediterranean countries too.
More complicated in US, in 30s even more as cocacola used this kind figure.
Now, from the fun sculptris forum challenge "holly cow, santa was an alien" I present you my vision - entry. Have fun, not a nightmare.
Merry christmas earth people...

boofredlay

Merry Christmas all.