Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
Some parting thoughts, since I have some work to do too, thankfully.
Like Pete said, Jesus was a radical socialist. He turned political and religious structures on their heads. But that's the point, Jesus operates in the human faith and relationship realm, not the scientific realm, and to conflate the two is pointless. IMHO -
But whose reply was the 666th? Ah!
-
@jason_maranto said:
... and while I have no doubt I could silence the critics with enough time and energy, I have neither.
I'm also rather curious on how you are gonna do what no one else on Earth managed to do concerning this subject. I'm gonna watch this space.
-
No, you're not.
The winner, I mean. -
You guys do know that the number of the beast is actually 616, right?
Or you can try 01562 55789....that's the fax no. of the beast.
-
@solo said:
Funny thing is if he was around today the exact folk that worship him would hate his social liberal ways and he'd be dismissed and persecuted...oh wait he was back then also.....hmmmm.
A point that most believers tend to miss.
When you critique the current North American view of Christianity you are critiquing a caricature of what following Christ really means.
-
What I do notice about this thread is that non believers are very supportive of others statements. Whilst believers are largely left unsupported or have separate ideas. Understandable considering the amount of variants to follow.
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief. Whether you agree with it or not.
On such a divisive subject it's nice to see a wholesome debate as such.
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
-
@unknownuser said:
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief.
Agreed.
-
I'm not seeing Cornel's posts since he doesn't see my questions
-
@unknownuser said:
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
I doubt that Rich. Both believers and non belivers alike think they are right but only one group thinks they hold the absolute knowledge, truth and righteousness.
-
@unknownuser said:
:lol:
But whose reply was the 666th? Ah!
OOOoooh, counting back, I might be the winnner!!
geez, I really gotta go...
Edit: Rats! I just saw Tom's screen grab. I guess my post was to light and fluffy to warrant a significant number. Eh, sort of "Life of Brian"-ish...
-
@unknownuser said:
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief. Whether you agree with it or not.
I also agree
@unknownuser said:
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
Not at all, a friend told me once and I'm not sure this would get him where he wanted to go but thought it fit the question. He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
-
@unknownuser said:
I do think both Brodie and Jason have a firm grasp on their faith and I commend them for taking the time to share that belief. Whether you agree with it or not.
@unknownuser said:
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
Yes.
-
Getting this back onto the topic...
The existence of [a] God [and that's 'any god', not just the Christian version] is a separate issue from the exact question in hand - although if you were to define God as "the being who created the Universe" then they do get uncomfortably close!
You can't prove beyond doubt the validity of a 'negative' statement.
So therefore we can't prove beyond doubt that, "God didn't create the Universe.".
Unfortunately this is not as good as it first appears for 'believers', because it also means that they can't prove beyond doubt that, "The Universe didn't simply pop into creation of its own accord".Let's set that issue to one side for a moment... you can support a 'positive' statement with supporting positive 'facts'...
So for example we really need to recast this question more like this...
"Is there substantive evidence that God created the Universe?"
For if we present enough proof then the conclusion is that 'God created the Universe'.
There is an undeniable and massive body of 'opinion' [faith/belief/etc] in favor of this; but that's quite simply not 'evidence'; someone saying something is 'so', doesn't make it 'so' - it's a baseless assumption, not 'truth'.
There is also significant written documentation, but that was first written down and later edited 'by men', to support the very position that we are testing, so it's hardly reliable independent 'evidence'.
So, what evidence do the 'believers' have that would withstand the tests of evidence of a court of law?
I have seen nothing presented thus far that has not been a regurgitation of entrenched opinion, dogma and cant; without any proper evidential 'proof' or reasoned 'argument'!As I said earlier - non-believers can't prove that, "God didn't create the Universe". BUT on the other hand there's no proper proof that God did make it either.
However, there is significant testable evidence that, "The Universe could have come into existence spontaneously.". This is not a 'negative', so it can be disproved. A substantial body of evidence has been established by scientists and many agree that there is a very strong indication that, "The Universe could have come into existence spontaneously", simply as an inevitable result of Quantum fluctuations in 'space'. Of course the whole ethos of science is to theorize/test/re-theorize/..., so sometime in the future opinions might have changed, and we might all accept that, "The Universe came into existence as a result of supernatural intervention." BUT there are really no indications of this; except from the extreme-believers' side, but they always fail to provide any concrete, testable evidence anyway...
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Has any believer questioned their thinking after reading the non believer responses?
Yes.
yes again.
-
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
He put that very nicely.
-
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
That's practically a simplified version of Pascal's wager. I don't really understand his stance.
-
@tig said:
Getting this back onto the topic...
The existence of [a] God [and that's 'any god', not just the Christian version] is a separate issue from the exact question in hand - although if you were to define God as "the being who created the Universe" then they do get uncomfortably close!
...So, what evidence do the 'believers' have that would withstand the tests of evidence of a court of law?
I have seen nothing presented thus far that has not been a regurgitation of entrenched opinion, dogma and cant; without any proper evidential 'proof' or reasoned 'argument'!...so sometime in the future opinions might have changed, and we might all accept that, "The Universe came into existence as a result of supernatural intervention." BUT there are really no indications of this; except from the extreme-believers' side, but they always fail to provide any concrete, testable evidence anyway...
I'm not sure the conversation ever veered off topic, as you are still talking about beliefs and evidence, etc. My opinion is that science and religion are two separate spheres that can (and should) co-exist. To ascribe the creation of the universe to the Christian God based on the Bible I think is quite far-fetched. I have no idea if there is a supreme being/ intelligence/ or what have you that created the universe. If there is, that "God" sure doesn't seem to be much involved in the day to day running of this planet.
-
@marian said:
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
That's practically a simplified version of Pascal's wager. I don't really understand his stance.
hehe - it's called suspension of disbelief...
-
@unknownuser said:
He said He'd rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right.
I can entirely sympathise with that, because that was me for a long time. Eventually, I just kind of let go...but not entirely; I still occasionally enjoy a trip to church, for social reasons as much as anything. And I am still sitting on the fence as an agnostic; most probably because I just hate to entirely rule out any possibility.
Advertisement